❓ Mrs Roberts questions the Treasurer about increasing state utility dividends and their impact on household electricity prices. The Treasurer defends price increases as necessary to manage state debt, blaming past price freezes.
AnsweredQoN 273Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
STATE UTILITIES — DIVIDENDS
I note that between the 2008 Pre-election Financial Projections Statement and the 2010–11 midyear review dividends from state utilities have increased by more than $720 million. (1) Will tomorrow’s state budget show another round of increases to dividends from state utilities? (2) Will the Treasurer protect families from price increases by foregoing dividends? (3) If not, why not? (4) How does the Treasurer justify 46 per cent increases to household electricity prices when the government so readily takes the extra profits in state electricity utilities as dividends? Mr C.C. PORTER
I note that between the 2008 Pre-election Financial Projections Statement and the 2010–11 midyear review dividends from state utilities have increased by more than $720 million. (1) Will tomorrow’s state budget show another round of increases to dividends from state utilities? (2) Will the Treasurer protect families from price increases by foregoing dividends? (3) If not, why not? (4) How does the Treasurer justify 46 per cent increases to household electricity prices when the government so readily takes the extra profits in state electricity utilities as dividends? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(4) Perhaps I might start with the part of the question that asks how we justify increases in electricity prices given that dividends exist. Of course there has been a lot of talk about debt leading up to this budget — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including by you. Mr C.C. PORTER : And quite properly. There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
(1) Will tomorrow’s state budget show another round of increases to dividends from state utilities? (2) Will the Treasurer protect families from price increases by foregoing dividends? (3) If not, why not? (4) How does the Treasurer justify 46 per cent increases to household electricity prices when the government so readily takes the extra profits in state electricity utilities as dividends? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)–(4) Perhaps I might start with the part of the question that asks how we justify increases in electricity prices given that dividends exist. Of course there has been a lot of talk about debt leading up to this budget — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including by you. Mr C.C. PORTER : And quite properly. There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
(2) Will the Treasurer protect families from price increases by foregoing dividends? (3) If not, why not? (4) How does the Treasurer justify 46 per cent increases to household electricity prices when the government so readily takes the extra profits in state electricity utilities as dividends? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)–(4) Perhaps I might start with the part of the question that asks how we justify increases in electricity prices given that dividends exist. Of course there has been a lot of talk about debt leading up to this budget — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including by you. Mr C.C. PORTER : And quite properly. There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
(3) If not, why not? (4) How does the Treasurer justify 46 per cent increases to household electricity prices when the government so readily takes the extra profits in state electricity utilities as dividends? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)–(4) Perhaps I might start with the part of the question that asks how we justify increases in electricity prices given that dividends exist. Of course there has been a lot of talk about debt leading up to this budget — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including by you. Mr C.C. PORTER : And quite properly. There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
(4) How does the Treasurer justify 46 per cent increases to household electricity prices when the government so readily takes the extra profits in state electricity utilities as dividends? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)–(4) Perhaps I might start with the part of the question that asks how we justify increases in electricity prices given that dividends exist. Of course there has been a lot of talk about debt leading up to this budget — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including by you. Mr C.C. PORTER : And quite properly. There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)–(4) Perhaps I might start with the part of the question that asks how we justify increases in electricity prices given that dividends exist. Of course there has been a lot of talk about debt leading up to this budget — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including by you. Mr C.C. PORTER : And quite properly. There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
(1)–(4) Perhaps I might start with the part of the question that asks how we justify increases in electricity prices given that dividends exist. Of course there has been a lot of talk about debt leading up to this budget — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including by you. Mr C.C. PORTER : And quite properly. There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Including by you. Mr C.C. PORTER : And quite properly. There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : And quite properly. There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
(1) Will tomorrow’s state budget show another round of increases to dividends from state utilities? (2) Will the Treasurer protect families from price increases by foregoing dividends? (3) If not, why not? (4) How does the Treasurer justify 46 per cent increases to household electricity prices when the government so readily takes the extra profits in state electricity utilities as dividends? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)–(4) Perhaps I might start with the part of the question that asks how we justify increases in electricity prices given that dividends exist. Of course there has been a lot of talk about debt leading up to this budget — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including by you. Mr C.C. PORTER : And quite properly. There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
(2) Will the Treasurer protect families from price increases by foregoing dividends? (3) If not, why not? (4) How does the Treasurer justify 46 per cent increases to household electricity prices when the government so readily takes the extra profits in state electricity utilities as dividends? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)–(4) Perhaps I might start with the part of the question that asks how we justify increases in electricity prices given that dividends exist. Of course there has been a lot of talk about debt leading up to this budget — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including by you. Mr C.C. PORTER : And quite properly. There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
(3) If not, why not? (4) How does the Treasurer justify 46 per cent increases to household electricity prices when the government so readily takes the extra profits in state electricity utilities as dividends? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)–(4) Perhaps I might start with the part of the question that asks how we justify increases in electricity prices given that dividends exist. Of course there has been a lot of talk about debt leading up to this budget — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including by you. Mr C.C. PORTER : And quite properly. There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
(4) How does the Treasurer justify 46 per cent increases to household electricity prices when the government so readily takes the extra profits in state electricity utilities as dividends? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)–(4) Perhaps I might start with the part of the question that asks how we justify increases in electricity prices given that dividends exist. Of course there has been a lot of talk about debt leading up to this budget — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including by you. Mr C.C. PORTER : And quite properly. There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: (1)–(4) Perhaps I might start with the part of the question that asks how we justify increases in electricity prices given that dividends exist. Of course there has been a lot of talk about debt leading up to this budget — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including by you. Mr C.C. PORTER : And quite properly. There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
(1)–(4) Perhaps I might start with the part of the question that asks how we justify increases in electricity prices given that dividends exist. Of course there has been a lot of talk about debt leading up to this budget — Mr E.S. Ripper : Including by you. Mr C.C. PORTER : And quite properly. There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Including by you. Mr C.C. PORTER : And quite properly. There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : And quite properly. There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
There are, of course, three ways that net debt can be decreased: we can cut spending on infrastructure, we can find extra savings in the budget—that is, cut back on recurrent expenditure—and of course when the price of electricity does not meet the cost of generating electricity — Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You have not mentioned the Premier’s preferred option, which is to privatise. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question, Leader of the Opposition. That is also a nonsense, but nevertheless. The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
The third thing is find additional sources of revenue. The Labor opposition complains about the level of net debt as it is predicted to be and yet it also maintains its policy to freeze the price of electricity across the forward estimates. Freeze the price of electricity! There had been no increases in electricity prices for businesses since 1991 and there had been no increases for householders since 1997. That put us in a position where we had to make a very difficult and painful decision for the people of Western Australia, and that was to increase electricity prices over the past 18 months. We did not do that because we wanted to; we did that because the other side of politics froze electricity prices. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, you have asked a question of the Treasurer. The expectation of most people in this place is that the Treasurer will answer the question. Others may think they have better answers, but I want to hear from the Treasurer. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I will undertake a very brief exercise to look at what is the alternative position on debt given the Labor Party’s policy on electricity prices. This is the Labor debt plan versus the Liberal–National debt plan. Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr M. McGowan : Mr Speaker, he is not answering the question. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am precisely answering the question. You asked why — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
The SPEAKER : I suggest to both parties involved in this action at the moment that the question has been asked and an answer is being given. Some people might not like the question, some people might not like the answer, but in an endeavour to get an answer out, I would like a little more silence in this place. Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Part of the question was how price rises in electricity are justified. The answer is that if we do not increase the price of electricity—that is, freeze prices—we will do terrible things to recurrent expenditure and to net debt. One of the justifications we engage for what will be modest increases in the cost of electricity, to be announced in tomorrow’s budget—indeed a very important justification, along with cost reflectivity and driving competition into the marketplace—is that if we freeze the price of electricity it will cost billions and billions of dollars over the forward estimates, which adds to debt. Let us do this little exercise because the Labor Party complains about debt. We have nominated three things that can be done to decrease debt. Leader of the Opposition, what is the hit list of infrastructure that the Labor Party will not engage in? Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Dividends. Let us see your budget tomorrow and then we will have a response! Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Sorry; I am listening. What is the hit list of infrastructure — Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You are listening, are you? Sit down and I will give you a lesson on how to do it! Sit down and I will talk about eight budgets, $200 million, and the lowest state debt on record. Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr W.J. Johnston : Too scared, the little bloke. The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
The SPEAKER : Member for Cannington, I formally call you to order for the first time. Treasurer, could I ask that you return directly to the questions asked by the member for Midland. Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I will do absolutely that. I have been asked how we justify the price of electricity. This is being generous: let us assume the opposition agreed with the 46 per cent increase in electricity prices. If we freeze it from hereon in to the 2013–14 year, $2 billion will be added to net debt. What does the opposition want to take off net debt? Oakajee and the Roe Highway extension—$340 million, $16 million and $14 million. What do they want to add on to net debt—$2 billion, $170 million for the postage stamp cost of a light rail network — Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Opposition members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Did the Leader of the Opposition support the three per cent efficiency dividend? Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr E.S. Ripper : I announced it! Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : He announced it, but supporting it is very different! There is a big difference between announcing and supporting. I cannot quite recall, going through the estimates process, a single individual efficiency measure under our three per cent policy that the opposition supported—not one. Do members know what that reaped in savings? Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mrs M.H. Roberts : Are you ever going to answer the question? Come on! Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am answering the question. What we targeted in savings, under the three per cent process to the out years, was $1.64 billion. The opposition fought us every single step of the way. Every single efficiency measure that we proposed was opposed. We will get there to the tune of about 90 per cent. Shadow Treasurer, let us assume that — Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, might I suggest the Treasurer is endeavouring to answer the question but your continual interruptions are not helping this process. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am suggesting to the shadow Treasurer that if the opposition does not support any further price increases for electricity, if it does not support the efficiency dividend and if it does not support the extra efficiencies we have driven into the budget and the savings, members opposite can decry the level of debt. Based on our calculations, the level of debt under that side of politics, with their freeze on electricity prices, with the very modest savings they supposed by getting rid of Oakajee, and the failure to come up with any other savings initiatives except of course the Office of Shared Services—which did not save as much as we would have hoped—would be in the vicinity of $24.2 billion. That is where they are headed.
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.