❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice addresses a discrepancy in Main Roads' depreciation estimates and its potential impact on the government's projected budget surplus. The Treasurer's representative disputes the premise of the question and provides alternative figures and explanations.
AnsweredQoN 314Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Given that Main Roads has acknowledged that it underestimated depreciation in 1999-2000 by a massive $81m, what adjustments have been made to the 2000-01 estimate, which is now $45m less than the previous year? (2) Does this mean that the Government's projected surplus is now in doubt; and, if not, why not? Hon PETER FOSS
AnswerView source ↗
This question clearly indicates the hazard of not just asking questions but making statements in a question which are not even based on fact. The first thing I say is that the Leader of the Opposition’s question is riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Hon N.D. Griffiths: Like your answers. Hon PETER FOSS: No, my answer will be very accurate. (1) Main Roads 1999-2000 depreciation of $139.2m represents an increase of $51.2m from the original estimate provided for 1999-2000. This increase can be attributed to the reassessment of the factors used to assess the condition of roads and their life expectancy. The result is a new and more comprehensive method of calculating depreciation of the State’s road network, which has led to a component of one-off or catch-up depreciation. At this stage, no adjustment has been made to the 2000-01 budget estimate of $94.5m. (2) In respect of the budget surplus, the recently released results report identifies for 1999-2000 an outcome of $276.4m, an improvement on that originally projected at budget time. In the current year, the Government will review the projected surplus, under the provisions of the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000, in its mid-year financial projections statement to be released in December 2000. It is premature at this stage to pre-empt changes to the projected surplus.
(2) Does this mean that the Government's projected surplus is now in doubt; and, if not, why not? Hon PETER FOSS replied: This question clearly indicates the hazard of not just asking questions but making statements in a question which are not even based on fact. The first thing I say is that the Leader of the Opposition’s question is riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Hon N.D. Griffiths: Like your answers. Hon PETER FOSS: No, my answer will be very accurate. (1) Main Roads 1999-2000 depreciation of $139.2m represents an increase of $51.2m from the original estimate provided for 1999-2000. This increase can be attributed to the reassessment of the factors used to assess the condition of roads and their life expectancy. The result is a new and more comprehensive method of calculating depreciation of the State’s road network, which has led to a component of one-off or catch-up depreciation. At this stage, no adjustment has been made to the 2000-01 budget estimate of $94.5m. (2) In respect of the budget surplus, the recently released results report identifies for 1999-2000 an outcome of $276.4m, an improvement on that originally projected at budget time. In the current year, the Government will review the projected surplus, under the provisions of the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000, in its mid-year financial projections statement to be released in December 2000. It is premature at this stage to pre-empt changes to the projected surplus.
Hon PETER FOSS replied: This question clearly indicates the hazard of not just asking questions but making statements in a question which are not even based on fact. The first thing I say is that the Leader of the Opposition’s question is riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Hon N.D. Griffiths: Like your answers. Hon PETER FOSS: No, my answer will be very accurate. (1) Main Roads 1999-2000 depreciation of $139.2m represents an increase of $51.2m from the original estimate provided for 1999-2000. This increase can be attributed to the reassessment of the factors used to assess the condition of roads and their life expectancy. The result is a new and more comprehensive method of calculating depreciation of the State’s road network, which has led to a component of one-off or catch-up depreciation. At this stage, no adjustment has been made to the 2000-01 budget estimate of $94.5m. (2) In respect of the budget surplus, the recently released results report identifies for 1999-2000 an outcome of $276.4m, an improvement on that originally projected at budget time. In the current year, the Government will review the projected surplus, under the provisions of the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000, in its mid-year financial projections statement to be released in December 2000. It is premature at this stage to pre-empt changes to the projected surplus.
This question clearly indicates the hazard of not just asking questions but making statements in a question which are not even based on fact. The first thing I say is that the Leader of the Opposition’s question is riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Hon N.D. Griffiths: Like your answers. Hon PETER FOSS: No, my answer will be very accurate. (1) Main Roads 1999-2000 depreciation of $139.2m represents an increase of $51.2m from the original estimate provided for 1999-2000. This increase can be attributed to the reassessment of the factors used to assess the condition of roads and their life expectancy. The result is a new and more comprehensive method of calculating depreciation of the State’s road network, which has led to a component of one-off or catch-up depreciation. At this stage, no adjustment has been made to the 2000-01 budget estimate of $94.5m. (2) In respect of the budget surplus, the recently released results report identifies for 1999-2000 an outcome of $276.4m, an improvement on that originally projected at budget time. In the current year, the Government will review the projected surplus, under the provisions of the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000, in its mid-year financial projections statement to be released in December 2000. It is premature at this stage to pre-empt changes to the projected surplus.
Hon N.D. Griffiths: Like your answers. Hon PETER FOSS: No, my answer will be very accurate. (1) Main Roads 1999-2000 depreciation of $139.2m represents an increase of $51.2m from the original estimate provided for 1999-2000. This increase can be attributed to the reassessment of the factors used to assess the condition of roads and their life expectancy. The result is a new and more comprehensive method of calculating depreciation of the State’s road network, which has led to a component of one-off or catch-up depreciation. At this stage, no adjustment has been made to the 2000-01 budget estimate of $94.5m. (2) In respect of the budget surplus, the recently released results report identifies for 1999-2000 an outcome of $276.4m, an improvement on that originally projected at budget time. In the current year, the Government will review the projected surplus, under the provisions of the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000, in its mid-year financial projections statement to be released in December 2000. It is premature at this stage to pre-empt changes to the projected surplus.
Hon PETER FOSS: No, my answer will be very accurate. (1) Main Roads 1999-2000 depreciation of $139.2m represents an increase of $51.2m from the original estimate provided for 1999-2000. This increase can be attributed to the reassessment of the factors used to assess the condition of roads and their life expectancy. The result is a new and more comprehensive method of calculating depreciation of the State’s road network, which has led to a component of one-off or catch-up depreciation. At this stage, no adjustment has been made to the 2000-01 budget estimate of $94.5m. (2) In respect of the budget surplus, the recently released results report identifies for 1999-2000 an outcome of $276.4m, an improvement on that originally projected at budget time. In the current year, the Government will review the projected surplus, under the provisions of the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000, in its mid-year financial projections statement to be released in December 2000. It is premature at this stage to pre-empt changes to the projected surplus.
(1) Main Roads 1999-2000 depreciation of $139.2m represents an increase of $51.2m from the original estimate provided for 1999-2000. This increase can be attributed to the reassessment of the factors used to assess the condition of roads and their life expectancy. The result is a new and more comprehensive method of calculating depreciation of the State’s road network, which has led to a component of one-off or catch-up depreciation. At this stage, no adjustment has been made to the 2000-01 budget estimate of $94.5m. (2) In respect of the budget surplus, the recently released results report identifies for 1999-2000 an outcome of $276.4m, an improvement on that originally projected at budget time. In the current year, the Government will review the projected surplus, under the provisions of the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000, in its mid-year financial projections statement to be released in December 2000. It is premature at this stage to pre-empt changes to the projected surplus.
(2) In respect of the budget surplus, the recently released results report identifies for 1999-2000 an outcome of $276.4m, an improvement on that originally projected at budget time. In the current year, the Government will review the projected surplus, under the provisions of the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000, in its mid-year financial projections statement to be released in December 2000. It is premature at this stage to pre-empt changes to the projected surplus.
(2) Does this mean that the Government's projected surplus is now in doubt; and, if not, why not? Hon PETER FOSS replied: This question clearly indicates the hazard of not just asking questions but making statements in a question which are not even based on fact. The first thing I say is that the Leader of the Opposition’s question is riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Hon N.D. Griffiths: Like your answers. Hon PETER FOSS: No, my answer will be very accurate. (1) Main Roads 1999-2000 depreciation of $139.2m represents an increase of $51.2m from the original estimate provided for 1999-2000. This increase can be attributed to the reassessment of the factors used to assess the condition of roads and their life expectancy. The result is a new and more comprehensive method of calculating depreciation of the State’s road network, which has led to a component of one-off or catch-up depreciation. At this stage, no adjustment has been made to the 2000-01 budget estimate of $94.5m. (2) In respect of the budget surplus, the recently released results report identifies for 1999-2000 an outcome of $276.4m, an improvement on that originally projected at budget time. In the current year, the Government will review the projected surplus, under the provisions of the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000, in its mid-year financial projections statement to be released in December 2000. It is premature at this stage to pre-empt changes to the projected surplus.
Hon PETER FOSS replied: This question clearly indicates the hazard of not just asking questions but making statements in a question which are not even based on fact. The first thing I say is that the Leader of the Opposition’s question is riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Hon N.D. Griffiths: Like your answers. Hon PETER FOSS: No, my answer will be very accurate. (1) Main Roads 1999-2000 depreciation of $139.2m represents an increase of $51.2m from the original estimate provided for 1999-2000. This increase can be attributed to the reassessment of the factors used to assess the condition of roads and their life expectancy. The result is a new and more comprehensive method of calculating depreciation of the State’s road network, which has led to a component of one-off or catch-up depreciation. At this stage, no adjustment has been made to the 2000-01 budget estimate of $94.5m. (2) In respect of the budget surplus, the recently released results report identifies for 1999-2000 an outcome of $276.4m, an improvement on that originally projected at budget time. In the current year, the Government will review the projected surplus, under the provisions of the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000, in its mid-year financial projections statement to be released in December 2000. It is premature at this stage to pre-empt changes to the projected surplus.
This question clearly indicates the hazard of not just asking questions but making statements in a question which are not even based on fact. The first thing I say is that the Leader of the Opposition’s question is riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Hon N.D. Griffiths: Like your answers. Hon PETER FOSS: No, my answer will be very accurate. (1) Main Roads 1999-2000 depreciation of $139.2m represents an increase of $51.2m from the original estimate provided for 1999-2000. This increase can be attributed to the reassessment of the factors used to assess the condition of roads and their life expectancy. The result is a new and more comprehensive method of calculating depreciation of the State’s road network, which has led to a component of one-off or catch-up depreciation. At this stage, no adjustment has been made to the 2000-01 budget estimate of $94.5m. (2) In respect of the budget surplus, the recently released results report identifies for 1999-2000 an outcome of $276.4m, an improvement on that originally projected at budget time. In the current year, the Government will review the projected surplus, under the provisions of the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000, in its mid-year financial projections statement to be released in December 2000. It is premature at this stage to pre-empt changes to the projected surplus.
Hon N.D. Griffiths: Like your answers. Hon PETER FOSS: No, my answer will be very accurate. (1) Main Roads 1999-2000 depreciation of $139.2m represents an increase of $51.2m from the original estimate provided for 1999-2000. This increase can be attributed to the reassessment of the factors used to assess the condition of roads and their life expectancy. The result is a new and more comprehensive method of calculating depreciation of the State’s road network, which has led to a component of one-off or catch-up depreciation. At this stage, no adjustment has been made to the 2000-01 budget estimate of $94.5m. (2) In respect of the budget surplus, the recently released results report identifies for 1999-2000 an outcome of $276.4m, an improvement on that originally projected at budget time. In the current year, the Government will review the projected surplus, under the provisions of the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000, in its mid-year financial projections statement to be released in December 2000. It is premature at this stage to pre-empt changes to the projected surplus.
Hon PETER FOSS: No, my answer will be very accurate. (1) Main Roads 1999-2000 depreciation of $139.2m represents an increase of $51.2m from the original estimate provided for 1999-2000. This increase can be attributed to the reassessment of the factors used to assess the condition of roads and their life expectancy. The result is a new and more comprehensive method of calculating depreciation of the State’s road network, which has led to a component of one-off or catch-up depreciation. At this stage, no adjustment has been made to the 2000-01 budget estimate of $94.5m. (2) In respect of the budget surplus, the recently released results report identifies for 1999-2000 an outcome of $276.4m, an improvement on that originally projected at budget time. In the current year, the Government will review the projected surplus, under the provisions of the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000, in its mid-year financial projections statement to be released in December 2000. It is premature at this stage to pre-empt changes to the projected surplus.
(1) Main Roads 1999-2000 depreciation of $139.2m represents an increase of $51.2m from the original estimate provided for 1999-2000. This increase can be attributed to the reassessment of the factors used to assess the condition of roads and their life expectancy. The result is a new and more comprehensive method of calculating depreciation of the State’s road network, which has led to a component of one-off or catch-up depreciation. At this stage, no adjustment has been made to the 2000-01 budget estimate of $94.5m. (2) In respect of the budget surplus, the recently released results report identifies for 1999-2000 an outcome of $276.4m, an improvement on that originally projected at budget time. In the current year, the Government will review the projected surplus, under the provisions of the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000, in its mid-year financial projections statement to be released in December 2000. It is premature at this stage to pre-empt changes to the projected surplus.
(2) In respect of the budget surplus, the recently released results report identifies for 1999-2000 an outcome of $276.4m, an improvement on that originally projected at budget time. In the current year, the Government will review the projected surplus, under the provisions of the Government Financial Responsibility Act 2000, in its mid-year financial projections statement to be released in December 2000. It is premature at this stage to pre-empt changes to the projected surplus.
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.