❓ WA Minister criticises the Federal Government's lack of investment in WA resource projects like Ravensthorpe, highlighting the disparity between revenue gained and infrastructure funding provided.
AnsweredQoN 504Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
RESOURCE PROJECTS - FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Can the Minister for State Development and Treasurer explain why the federal government is refusing to contribute significant funds to major WA resource projects such as the Ravensthorpe nickel mine, when it is clearly reaping the bulk of the financial rewards? Mr E.S. RIPPER
Can the Minister for State Development and Treasurer explain why the federal government is refusing to contribute significant funds to major WA resource projects such as the Ravensthorpe nickel mine, when it is clearly reaping the bulk of the financial rewards? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
I actually have some difficulty answering this question because I find it difficult to understand why the federal government is not making more of a contribution to infrastructure in Western Australia. If it were a corporation, it would be reinvesting in one of its most profitable areas of operation. Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Avon! Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why did federal Labor oppose the money going in from the federal government to Ravensthorpe? Why did that happen? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The federal opposition supports commonwealth money going into infrastructure in Western Australia. Mr M.W. Trenorden : It did not; it raised a motion in the federal Parliament opposing it. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me come back to the position that any corporation would adopt. Any corporation would reinvest in its most profitable area. One would expect that any national government with an export problem, a current account deficit, would invest to support increased exports from its most profitable and prolific exporting state. However, we do not see that from the federal government. On the other hand, the state government signed a memorandum of understanding with regard to Ravensthorpe when it said it would contribute $18 million for infrastructure. We have now contributed $55 million on things such as a primary school in Hopetoun, an airstrip in Ravensthorpe, improvements to shire services, upgrades to roads and improvements to the middle school of Esperance Community College. We are spending $55 million to support infrastructure for the Ravensthorpe nickel project. On the other hand, the commonwealth government has contributed just $11 million. Who gets what out of this project? The federal government will get seven times as much revenue from the Ravensthorpe nickel project as the state government. It put in $11 million and we put in $55 million. That is just one example of its lack of commitment to infrastructure in WA - $317 per capita from the commonwealth and $2 154 per capita from the state government - because we understand the importance of infrastructure for the future growth of our economy and we make a commitment to that infrastructure. On the other side of politics, at least at the federal level, there is no understanding of that. There is no commitment. The federal government fritters away the money in pork-barrelling in marginal National Party seats on the eastern seaboard; it does not reinvest in its most profitable exporting state, Western Australia, which is providing 36 per cent of the nation’s merchandise exports. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I actually have some difficulty answering this question because I find it difficult to understand why the federal government is not making more of a contribution to infrastructure in Western Australia. If it were a corporation, it would be reinvesting in one of its most profitable areas of operation. Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Avon! Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why did federal Labor oppose the money going in from the federal government to Ravensthorpe? Why did that happen? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The federal opposition supports commonwealth money going into infrastructure in Western Australia. Mr M.W. Trenorden : It did not; it raised a motion in the federal Parliament opposing it. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me come back to the position that any corporation would adopt. Any corporation would reinvest in its most profitable area. One would expect that any national government with an export problem, a current account deficit, would invest to support increased exports from its most profitable and prolific exporting state. However, we do not see that from the federal government. On the other hand, the state government signed a memorandum of understanding with regard to Ravensthorpe when it said it would contribute $18 million for infrastructure. We have now contributed $55 million on things such as a primary school in Hopetoun, an airstrip in Ravensthorpe, improvements to shire services, upgrades to roads and improvements to the middle school of Esperance Community College. We are spending $55 million to support infrastructure for the Ravensthorpe nickel project. On the other hand, the commonwealth government has contributed just $11 million. Who gets what out of this project? The federal government will get seven times as much revenue from the Ravensthorpe nickel project as the state government. It put in $11 million and we put in $55 million. That is just one example of its lack of commitment to infrastructure in WA - $317 per capita from the commonwealth and $2 154 per capita from the state government - because we understand the importance of infrastructure for the future growth of our economy and we make a commitment to that infrastructure. On the other side of politics, at least at the federal level, there is no understanding of that. There is no commitment. The federal government fritters away the money in pork-barrelling in marginal National Party seats on the eastern seaboard; it does not reinvest in its most profitable exporting state, Western Australia, which is providing 36 per cent of the nation’s merchandise exports. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
I actually have some difficulty answering this question because I find it difficult to understand why the federal government is not making more of a contribution to infrastructure in Western Australia. If it were a corporation, it would be reinvesting in one of its most profitable areas of operation. Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Avon! Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why did federal Labor oppose the money going in from the federal government to Ravensthorpe? Why did that happen? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The federal opposition supports commonwealth money going into infrastructure in Western Australia. Mr M.W. Trenorden : It did not; it raised a motion in the federal Parliament opposing it. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me come back to the position that any corporation would adopt. Any corporation would reinvest in its most profitable area. One would expect that any national government with an export problem, a current account deficit, would invest to support increased exports from its most profitable and prolific exporting state. However, we do not see that from the federal government. On the other hand, the state government signed a memorandum of understanding with regard to Ravensthorpe when it said it would contribute $18 million for infrastructure. We have now contributed $55 million on things such as a primary school in Hopetoun, an airstrip in Ravensthorpe, improvements to shire services, upgrades to roads and improvements to the middle school of Esperance Community College. We are spending $55 million to support infrastructure for the Ravensthorpe nickel project. On the other hand, the commonwealth government has contributed just $11 million. Who gets what out of this project? The federal government will get seven times as much revenue from the Ravensthorpe nickel project as the state government. It put in $11 million and we put in $55 million. That is just one example of its lack of commitment to infrastructure in WA - $317 per capita from the commonwealth and $2 154 per capita from the state government - because we understand the importance of infrastructure for the future growth of our economy and we make a commitment to that infrastructure. On the other side of politics, at least at the federal level, there is no understanding of that. There is no commitment. The federal government fritters away the money in pork-barrelling in marginal National Party seats on the eastern seaboard; it does not reinvest in its most profitable exporting state, Western Australia, which is providing 36 per cent of the nation’s merchandise exports. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Avon! Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why did federal Labor oppose the money going in from the federal government to Ravensthorpe? Why did that happen? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The federal opposition supports commonwealth money going into infrastructure in Western Australia. Mr M.W. Trenorden : It did not; it raised a motion in the federal Parliament opposing it. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me come back to the position that any corporation would adopt. Any corporation would reinvest in its most profitable area. One would expect that any national government with an export problem, a current account deficit, would invest to support increased exports from its most profitable and prolific exporting state. However, we do not see that from the federal government. On the other hand, the state government signed a memorandum of understanding with regard to Ravensthorpe when it said it would contribute $18 million for infrastructure. We have now contributed $55 million on things such as a primary school in Hopetoun, an airstrip in Ravensthorpe, improvements to shire services, upgrades to roads and improvements to the middle school of Esperance Community College. We are spending $55 million to support infrastructure for the Ravensthorpe nickel project. On the other hand, the commonwealth government has contributed just $11 million. Who gets what out of this project? The federal government will get seven times as much revenue from the Ravensthorpe nickel project as the state government. It put in $11 million and we put in $55 million. That is just one example of its lack of commitment to infrastructure in WA - $317 per capita from the commonwealth and $2 154 per capita from the state government - because we understand the importance of infrastructure for the future growth of our economy and we make a commitment to that infrastructure. On the other side of politics, at least at the federal level, there is no understanding of that. There is no commitment. The federal government fritters away the money in pork-barrelling in marginal National Party seats on the eastern seaboard; it does not reinvest in its most profitable exporting state, Western Australia, which is providing 36 per cent of the nation’s merchandise exports. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Avon! Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why did federal Labor oppose the money going in from the federal government to Ravensthorpe? Why did that happen? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The federal opposition supports commonwealth money going into infrastructure in Western Australia. Mr M.W. Trenorden : It did not; it raised a motion in the federal Parliament opposing it. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me come back to the position that any corporation would adopt. Any corporation would reinvest in its most profitable area. One would expect that any national government with an export problem, a current account deficit, would invest to support increased exports from its most profitable and prolific exporting state. However, we do not see that from the federal government. On the other hand, the state government signed a memorandum of understanding with regard to Ravensthorpe when it said it would contribute $18 million for infrastructure. We have now contributed $55 million on things such as a primary school in Hopetoun, an airstrip in Ravensthorpe, improvements to shire services, upgrades to roads and improvements to the middle school of Esperance Community College. We are spending $55 million to support infrastructure for the Ravensthorpe nickel project. On the other hand, the commonwealth government has contributed just $11 million. Who gets what out of this project? The federal government will get seven times as much revenue from the Ravensthorpe nickel project as the state government. It put in $11 million and we put in $55 million. That is just one example of its lack of commitment to infrastructure in WA - $317 per capita from the commonwealth and $2 154 per capita from the state government - because we understand the importance of infrastructure for the future growth of our economy and we make a commitment to that infrastructure. On the other side of politics, at least at the federal level, there is no understanding of that. There is no commitment. The federal government fritters away the money in pork-barrelling in marginal National Party seats on the eastern seaboard; it does not reinvest in its most profitable exporting state, Western Australia, which is providing 36 per cent of the nation’s merchandise exports. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why did federal Labor oppose the money going in from the federal government to Ravensthorpe? Why did that happen? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The federal opposition supports commonwealth money going into infrastructure in Western Australia. Mr M.W. Trenorden : It did not; it raised a motion in the federal Parliament opposing it. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me come back to the position that any corporation would adopt. Any corporation would reinvest in its most profitable area. One would expect that any national government with an export problem, a current account deficit, would invest to support increased exports from its most profitable and prolific exporting state. However, we do not see that from the federal government. On the other hand, the state government signed a memorandum of understanding with regard to Ravensthorpe when it said it would contribute $18 million for infrastructure. We have now contributed $55 million on things such as a primary school in Hopetoun, an airstrip in Ravensthorpe, improvements to shire services, upgrades to roads and improvements to the middle school of Esperance Community College. We are spending $55 million to support infrastructure for the Ravensthorpe nickel project. On the other hand, the commonwealth government has contributed just $11 million. Who gets what out of this project? The federal government will get seven times as much revenue from the Ravensthorpe nickel project as the state government. It put in $11 million and we put in $55 million. That is just one example of its lack of commitment to infrastructure in WA - $317 per capita from the commonwealth and $2 154 per capita from the state government - because we understand the importance of infrastructure for the future growth of our economy and we make a commitment to that infrastructure. On the other side of politics, at least at the federal level, there is no understanding of that. There is no commitment. The federal government fritters away the money in pork-barrelling in marginal National Party seats on the eastern seaboard; it does not reinvest in its most profitable exporting state, Western Australia, which is providing 36 per cent of the nation’s merchandise exports. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The federal opposition supports commonwealth money going into infrastructure in Western Australia. Mr M.W. Trenorden : It did not; it raised a motion in the federal Parliament opposing it. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me come back to the position that any corporation would adopt. Any corporation would reinvest in its most profitable area. One would expect that any national government with an export problem, a current account deficit, would invest to support increased exports from its most profitable and prolific exporting state. However, we do not see that from the federal government. On the other hand, the state government signed a memorandum of understanding with regard to Ravensthorpe when it said it would contribute $18 million for infrastructure. We have now contributed $55 million on things such as a primary school in Hopetoun, an airstrip in Ravensthorpe, improvements to shire services, upgrades to roads and improvements to the middle school of Esperance Community College. We are spending $55 million to support infrastructure for the Ravensthorpe nickel project. On the other hand, the commonwealth government has contributed just $11 million. Who gets what out of this project? The federal government will get seven times as much revenue from the Ravensthorpe nickel project as the state government. It put in $11 million and we put in $55 million. That is just one example of its lack of commitment to infrastructure in WA - $317 per capita from the commonwealth and $2 154 per capita from the state government - because we understand the importance of infrastructure for the future growth of our economy and we make a commitment to that infrastructure. On the other side of politics, at least at the federal level, there is no understanding of that. There is no commitment. The federal government fritters away the money in pork-barrelling in marginal National Party seats on the eastern seaboard; it does not reinvest in its most profitable exporting state, Western Australia, which is providing 36 per cent of the nation’s merchandise exports. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
Mr M.W. Trenorden : It did not; it raised a motion in the federal Parliament opposing it. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me come back to the position that any corporation would adopt. Any corporation would reinvest in its most profitable area. One would expect that any national government with an export problem, a current account deficit, would invest to support increased exports from its most profitable and prolific exporting state. However, we do not see that from the federal government. On the other hand, the state government signed a memorandum of understanding with regard to Ravensthorpe when it said it would contribute $18 million for infrastructure. We have now contributed $55 million on things such as a primary school in Hopetoun, an airstrip in Ravensthorpe, improvements to shire services, upgrades to roads and improvements to the middle school of Esperance Community College. We are spending $55 million to support infrastructure for the Ravensthorpe nickel project. On the other hand, the commonwealth government has contributed just $11 million. Who gets what out of this project? The federal government will get seven times as much revenue from the Ravensthorpe nickel project as the state government. It put in $11 million and we put in $55 million. That is just one example of its lack of commitment to infrastructure in WA - $317 per capita from the commonwealth and $2 154 per capita from the state government - because we understand the importance of infrastructure for the future growth of our economy and we make a commitment to that infrastructure. On the other side of politics, at least at the federal level, there is no understanding of that. There is no commitment. The federal government fritters away the money in pork-barrelling in marginal National Party seats on the eastern seaboard; it does not reinvest in its most profitable exporting state, Western Australia, which is providing 36 per cent of the nation’s merchandise exports. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me come back to the position that any corporation would adopt. Any corporation would reinvest in its most profitable area. One would expect that any national government with an export problem, a current account deficit, would invest to support increased exports from its most profitable and prolific exporting state. However, we do not see that from the federal government. On the other hand, the state government signed a memorandum of understanding with regard to Ravensthorpe when it said it would contribute $18 million for infrastructure. We have now contributed $55 million on things such as a primary school in Hopetoun, an airstrip in Ravensthorpe, improvements to shire services, upgrades to roads and improvements to the middle school of Esperance Community College. We are spending $55 million to support infrastructure for the Ravensthorpe nickel project. On the other hand, the commonwealth government has contributed just $11 million. Who gets what out of this project? The federal government will get seven times as much revenue from the Ravensthorpe nickel project as the state government. It put in $11 million and we put in $55 million. That is just one example of its lack of commitment to infrastructure in WA - $317 per capita from the commonwealth and $2 154 per capita from the state government - because we understand the importance of infrastructure for the future growth of our economy and we make a commitment to that infrastructure. On the other side of politics, at least at the federal level, there is no understanding of that. There is no commitment. The federal government fritters away the money in pork-barrelling in marginal National Party seats on the eastern seaboard; it does not reinvest in its most profitable exporting state, Western Australia, which is providing 36 per cent of the nation’s merchandise exports. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I actually have some difficulty answering this question because I find it difficult to understand why the federal government is not making more of a contribution to infrastructure in Western Australia. If it were a corporation, it would be reinvesting in one of its most profitable areas of operation. Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Avon! Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why did federal Labor oppose the money going in from the federal government to Ravensthorpe? Why did that happen? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The federal opposition supports commonwealth money going into infrastructure in Western Australia. Mr M.W. Trenorden : It did not; it raised a motion in the federal Parliament opposing it. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me come back to the position that any corporation would adopt. Any corporation would reinvest in its most profitable area. One would expect that any national government with an export problem, a current account deficit, would invest to support increased exports from its most profitable and prolific exporting state. However, we do not see that from the federal government. On the other hand, the state government signed a memorandum of understanding with regard to Ravensthorpe when it said it would contribute $18 million for infrastructure. We have now contributed $55 million on things such as a primary school in Hopetoun, an airstrip in Ravensthorpe, improvements to shire services, upgrades to roads and improvements to the middle school of Esperance Community College. We are spending $55 million to support infrastructure for the Ravensthorpe nickel project. On the other hand, the commonwealth government has contributed just $11 million. Who gets what out of this project? The federal government will get seven times as much revenue from the Ravensthorpe nickel project as the state government. It put in $11 million and we put in $55 million. That is just one example of its lack of commitment to infrastructure in WA - $317 per capita from the commonwealth and $2 154 per capita from the state government - because we understand the importance of infrastructure for the future growth of our economy and we make a commitment to that infrastructure. On the other side of politics, at least at the federal level, there is no understanding of that. There is no commitment. The federal government fritters away the money in pork-barrelling in marginal National Party seats on the eastern seaboard; it does not reinvest in its most profitable exporting state, Western Australia, which is providing 36 per cent of the nation’s merchandise exports. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
I actually have some difficulty answering this question because I find it difficult to understand why the federal government is not making more of a contribution to infrastructure in Western Australia. If it were a corporation, it would be reinvesting in one of its most profitable areas of operation. Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Avon! Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why did federal Labor oppose the money going in from the federal government to Ravensthorpe? Why did that happen? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The federal opposition supports commonwealth money going into infrastructure in Western Australia. Mr M.W. Trenorden : It did not; it raised a motion in the federal Parliament opposing it. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me come back to the position that any corporation would adopt. Any corporation would reinvest in its most profitable area. One would expect that any national government with an export problem, a current account deficit, would invest to support increased exports from its most profitable and prolific exporting state. However, we do not see that from the federal government. On the other hand, the state government signed a memorandum of understanding with regard to Ravensthorpe when it said it would contribute $18 million for infrastructure. We have now contributed $55 million on things such as a primary school in Hopetoun, an airstrip in Ravensthorpe, improvements to shire services, upgrades to roads and improvements to the middle school of Esperance Community College. We are spending $55 million to support infrastructure for the Ravensthorpe nickel project. On the other hand, the commonwealth government has contributed just $11 million. Who gets what out of this project? The federal government will get seven times as much revenue from the Ravensthorpe nickel project as the state government. It put in $11 million and we put in $55 million. That is just one example of its lack of commitment to infrastructure in WA - $317 per capita from the commonwealth and $2 154 per capita from the state government - because we understand the importance of infrastructure for the future growth of our economy and we make a commitment to that infrastructure. On the other side of politics, at least at the federal level, there is no understanding of that. There is no commitment. The federal government fritters away the money in pork-barrelling in marginal National Party seats on the eastern seaboard; it does not reinvest in its most profitable exporting state, Western Australia, which is providing 36 per cent of the nation’s merchandise exports. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Avon! Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why did federal Labor oppose the money going in from the federal government to Ravensthorpe? Why did that happen? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The federal opposition supports commonwealth money going into infrastructure in Western Australia. Mr M.W. Trenorden : It did not; it raised a motion in the federal Parliament opposing it. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me come back to the position that any corporation would adopt. Any corporation would reinvest in its most profitable area. One would expect that any national government with an export problem, a current account deficit, would invest to support increased exports from its most profitable and prolific exporting state. However, we do not see that from the federal government. On the other hand, the state government signed a memorandum of understanding with regard to Ravensthorpe when it said it would contribute $18 million for infrastructure. We have now contributed $55 million on things such as a primary school in Hopetoun, an airstrip in Ravensthorpe, improvements to shire services, upgrades to roads and improvements to the middle school of Esperance Community College. We are spending $55 million to support infrastructure for the Ravensthorpe nickel project. On the other hand, the commonwealth government has contributed just $11 million. Who gets what out of this project? The federal government will get seven times as much revenue from the Ravensthorpe nickel project as the state government. It put in $11 million and we put in $55 million. That is just one example of its lack of commitment to infrastructure in WA - $317 per capita from the commonwealth and $2 154 per capita from the state government - because we understand the importance of infrastructure for the future growth of our economy and we make a commitment to that infrastructure. On the other side of politics, at least at the federal level, there is no understanding of that. There is no commitment. The federal government fritters away the money in pork-barrelling in marginal National Party seats on the eastern seaboard; it does not reinvest in its most profitable exporting state, Western Australia, which is providing 36 per cent of the nation’s merchandise exports. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, member for Avon! Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why did federal Labor oppose the money going in from the federal government to Ravensthorpe? Why did that happen? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The federal opposition supports commonwealth money going into infrastructure in Western Australia. Mr M.W. Trenorden : It did not; it raised a motion in the federal Parliament opposing it. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me come back to the position that any corporation would adopt. Any corporation would reinvest in its most profitable area. One would expect that any national government with an export problem, a current account deficit, would invest to support increased exports from its most profitable and prolific exporting state. However, we do not see that from the federal government. On the other hand, the state government signed a memorandum of understanding with regard to Ravensthorpe when it said it would contribute $18 million for infrastructure. We have now contributed $55 million on things such as a primary school in Hopetoun, an airstrip in Ravensthorpe, improvements to shire services, upgrades to roads and improvements to the middle school of Esperance Community College. We are spending $55 million to support infrastructure for the Ravensthorpe nickel project. On the other hand, the commonwealth government has contributed just $11 million. Who gets what out of this project? The federal government will get seven times as much revenue from the Ravensthorpe nickel project as the state government. It put in $11 million and we put in $55 million. That is just one example of its lack of commitment to infrastructure in WA - $317 per capita from the commonwealth and $2 154 per capita from the state government - because we understand the importance of infrastructure for the future growth of our economy and we make a commitment to that infrastructure. On the other side of politics, at least at the federal level, there is no understanding of that. There is no commitment. The federal government fritters away the money in pork-barrelling in marginal National Party seats on the eastern seaboard; it does not reinvest in its most profitable exporting state, Western Australia, which is providing 36 per cent of the nation’s merchandise exports. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
Mr M.W. Trenorden : Why did federal Labor oppose the money going in from the federal government to Ravensthorpe? Why did that happen? Mr E.S. RIPPER : The federal opposition supports commonwealth money going into infrastructure in Western Australia. Mr M.W. Trenorden : It did not; it raised a motion in the federal Parliament opposing it. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me come back to the position that any corporation would adopt. Any corporation would reinvest in its most profitable area. One would expect that any national government with an export problem, a current account deficit, would invest to support increased exports from its most profitable and prolific exporting state. However, we do not see that from the federal government. On the other hand, the state government signed a memorandum of understanding with regard to Ravensthorpe when it said it would contribute $18 million for infrastructure. We have now contributed $55 million on things such as a primary school in Hopetoun, an airstrip in Ravensthorpe, improvements to shire services, upgrades to roads and improvements to the middle school of Esperance Community College. We are spending $55 million to support infrastructure for the Ravensthorpe nickel project. On the other hand, the commonwealth government has contributed just $11 million. Who gets what out of this project? The federal government will get seven times as much revenue from the Ravensthorpe nickel project as the state government. It put in $11 million and we put in $55 million. That is just one example of its lack of commitment to infrastructure in WA - $317 per capita from the commonwealth and $2 154 per capita from the state government - because we understand the importance of infrastructure for the future growth of our economy and we make a commitment to that infrastructure. On the other side of politics, at least at the federal level, there is no understanding of that. There is no commitment. The federal government fritters away the money in pork-barrelling in marginal National Party seats on the eastern seaboard; it does not reinvest in its most profitable exporting state, Western Australia, which is providing 36 per cent of the nation’s merchandise exports. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The federal opposition supports commonwealth money going into infrastructure in Western Australia. Mr M.W. Trenorden : It did not; it raised a motion in the federal Parliament opposing it. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me come back to the position that any corporation would adopt. Any corporation would reinvest in its most profitable area. One would expect that any national government with an export problem, a current account deficit, would invest to support increased exports from its most profitable and prolific exporting state. However, we do not see that from the federal government. On the other hand, the state government signed a memorandum of understanding with regard to Ravensthorpe when it said it would contribute $18 million for infrastructure. We have now contributed $55 million on things such as a primary school in Hopetoun, an airstrip in Ravensthorpe, improvements to shire services, upgrades to roads and improvements to the middle school of Esperance Community College. We are spending $55 million to support infrastructure for the Ravensthorpe nickel project. On the other hand, the commonwealth government has contributed just $11 million. Who gets what out of this project? The federal government will get seven times as much revenue from the Ravensthorpe nickel project as the state government. It put in $11 million and we put in $55 million. That is just one example of its lack of commitment to infrastructure in WA - $317 per capita from the commonwealth and $2 154 per capita from the state government - because we understand the importance of infrastructure for the future growth of our economy and we make a commitment to that infrastructure. On the other side of politics, at least at the federal level, there is no understanding of that. There is no commitment. The federal government fritters away the money in pork-barrelling in marginal National Party seats on the eastern seaboard; it does not reinvest in its most profitable exporting state, Western Australia, which is providing 36 per cent of the nation’s merchandise exports. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
Mr M.W. Trenorden : It did not; it raised a motion in the federal Parliament opposing it. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me come back to the position that any corporation would adopt. Any corporation would reinvest in its most profitable area. One would expect that any national government with an export problem, a current account deficit, would invest to support increased exports from its most profitable and prolific exporting state. However, we do not see that from the federal government. On the other hand, the state government signed a memorandum of understanding with regard to Ravensthorpe when it said it would contribute $18 million for infrastructure. We have now contributed $55 million on things such as a primary school in Hopetoun, an airstrip in Ravensthorpe, improvements to shire services, upgrades to roads and improvements to the middle school of Esperance Community College. We are spending $55 million to support infrastructure for the Ravensthorpe nickel project. On the other hand, the commonwealth government has contributed just $11 million. Who gets what out of this project? The federal government will get seven times as much revenue from the Ravensthorpe nickel project as the state government. It put in $11 million and we put in $55 million. That is just one example of its lack of commitment to infrastructure in WA - $317 per capita from the commonwealth and $2 154 per capita from the state government - because we understand the importance of infrastructure for the future growth of our economy and we make a commitment to that infrastructure. On the other side of politics, at least at the federal level, there is no understanding of that. There is no commitment. The federal government fritters away the money in pork-barrelling in marginal National Party seats on the eastern seaboard; it does not reinvest in its most profitable exporting state, Western Australia, which is providing 36 per cent of the nation’s merchandise exports. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Let me come back to the position that any corporation would adopt. Any corporation would reinvest in its most profitable area. One would expect that any national government with an export problem, a current account deficit, would invest to support increased exports from its most profitable and prolific exporting state. However, we do not see that from the federal government. On the other hand, the state government signed a memorandum of understanding with regard to Ravensthorpe when it said it would contribute $18 million for infrastructure. We have now contributed $55 million on things such as a primary school in Hopetoun, an airstrip in Ravensthorpe, improvements to shire services, upgrades to roads and improvements to the middle school of Esperance Community College. We are spending $55 million to support infrastructure for the Ravensthorpe nickel project. On the other hand, the commonwealth government has contributed just $11 million. Who gets what out of this project? The federal government will get seven times as much revenue from the Ravensthorpe nickel project as the state government. It put in $11 million and we put in $55 million. That is just one example of its lack of commitment to infrastructure in WA - $317 per capita from the commonwealth and $2 154 per capita from the state government - because we understand the importance of infrastructure for the future growth of our economy and we make a commitment to that infrastructure. On the other side of politics, at least at the federal level, there is no understanding of that. There is no commitment. The federal government fritters away the money in pork-barrelling in marginal National Party seats on the eastern seaboard; it does not reinvest in its most profitable exporting state, Western Australia, which is providing 36 per cent of the nation’s merchandise exports. The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER : Members may not like the answer, but that does not allow them to interject in the manner in which they have; therefore, I call the member for Avon and the member for Roe to order for the first time.
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.