❓ Mrs. Martin questions the Treasurer about the reduction in WA's GST share. Mr. Ripper defends the government's actions, highlighting past efforts and securing federal funding for infrastructure projects.
AnsweredQoN 245Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX — WESTERN AUSTRALIA’S SHARE
Would the brilliant Treasurer explain the reduction in Western Australia’s share of goods and services tax and what is being done to help alleviate this problem? Mr E.S. RIPPER
Would the brilliant Treasurer explain the reduction in Western Australia’s share of goods and services tax and what is being done to help alleviate this problem? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
It is interesting to see that opposition members, after seven long years, have at last discovered that there is an issue with Western Australia’s share of the goods and services tax. Have they not been listening to the speeches that are given in this place, have they not been paying attention in question time, have they not read the press releases and have they not read the budget speeches? We have been raising this issue year after year and making proper submissions nationally to get this issue addressed. It is amazing that right now the Leader of the Opposition, after seven years of being mute on this issue, would at last — Mr G. Snook : He’s not been here that long. Mr E.S. RIPPER : His colleagues were here seven years ago and they include people who were in the cabinet that signed up to this deal. It was Richard Court, as Premier, who signed up to this deal, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warren-Blackwood and the member for Darling Range were members of the cabinet that signed that deal. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the members for Warren-Blackwood and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They have to bear responsibility for the consequences. Although the Leader of the Opposition, I am reminded, has been in this place for only a very short time—and does it not show—his organisation has remained mute on this issue for the past seven years. As I have said in this house in the past, the figures are quite disturbing. If our economy continues to outperform the economies of the other states, by 2011-12 we can expect, with 10.3 per cent of the nation’s population, to receive 6.2 per cent of the GST. What are we doing about it? An amount of $6 billion is being taken out of our finances and given to other states. It has to be recognised that $6 billion given to other states is a powerful barrier to reform. Nevertheless, there are avenues for us to secure a better deal for Western Australia. For example, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is reviewing its methodology. From our point of view, there is an error in its methodology because it does not take sufficient account of the infrastructure costs of securing the development that we are currently enjoying. If the Commonwealth Grants Commission took more account of our infrastructure needs, there would be a better deal for Western Australia. We are in there vigorously pursuing that issue. The last time that we vigorously pursued that issue was at the time of the last review, out of which we got an additional $250 million for Western Australia in annual GST share. The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: It is interesting to see that opposition members, after seven long years, have at last discovered that there is an issue with Western Australia’s share of the goods and services tax. Have they not been listening to the speeches that are given in this place, have they not been paying attention in question time, have they not read the press releases and have they not read the budget speeches? We have been raising this issue year after year and making proper submissions nationally to get this issue addressed. It is amazing that right now the Leader of the Opposition, after seven years of being mute on this issue, would at last — Mr G. Snook : He’s not been here that long. Mr E.S. RIPPER : His colleagues were here seven years ago and they include people who were in the cabinet that signed up to this deal. It was Richard Court, as Premier, who signed up to this deal, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warren-Blackwood and the member for Darling Range were members of the cabinet that signed that deal. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the members for Warren-Blackwood and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They have to bear responsibility for the consequences. Although the Leader of the Opposition, I am reminded, has been in this place for only a very short time—and does it not show—his organisation has remained mute on this issue for the past seven years. As I have said in this house in the past, the figures are quite disturbing. If our economy continues to outperform the economies of the other states, by 2011-12 we can expect, with 10.3 per cent of the nation’s population, to receive 6.2 per cent of the GST. What are we doing about it? An amount of $6 billion is being taken out of our finances and given to other states. It has to be recognised that $6 billion given to other states is a powerful barrier to reform. Nevertheless, there are avenues for us to secure a better deal for Western Australia. For example, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is reviewing its methodology. From our point of view, there is an error in its methodology because it does not take sufficient account of the infrastructure costs of securing the development that we are currently enjoying. If the Commonwealth Grants Commission took more account of our infrastructure needs, there would be a better deal for Western Australia. We are in there vigorously pursuing that issue. The last time that we vigorously pursued that issue was at the time of the last review, out of which we got an additional $250 million for Western Australia in annual GST share. The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
It is interesting to see that opposition members, after seven long years, have at last discovered that there is an issue with Western Australia’s share of the goods and services tax. Have they not been listening to the speeches that are given in this place, have they not been paying attention in question time, have they not read the press releases and have they not read the budget speeches? We have been raising this issue year after year and making proper submissions nationally to get this issue addressed. It is amazing that right now the Leader of the Opposition, after seven years of being mute on this issue, would at last — Mr G. Snook : He’s not been here that long. Mr E.S. RIPPER : His colleagues were here seven years ago and they include people who were in the cabinet that signed up to this deal. It was Richard Court, as Premier, who signed up to this deal, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warren-Blackwood and the member for Darling Range were members of the cabinet that signed that deal. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the members for Warren-Blackwood and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They have to bear responsibility for the consequences. Although the Leader of the Opposition, I am reminded, has been in this place for only a very short time—and does it not show—his organisation has remained mute on this issue for the past seven years. As I have said in this house in the past, the figures are quite disturbing. If our economy continues to outperform the economies of the other states, by 2011-12 we can expect, with 10.3 per cent of the nation’s population, to receive 6.2 per cent of the GST. What are we doing about it? An amount of $6 billion is being taken out of our finances and given to other states. It has to be recognised that $6 billion given to other states is a powerful barrier to reform. Nevertheless, there are avenues for us to secure a better deal for Western Australia. For example, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is reviewing its methodology. From our point of view, there is an error in its methodology because it does not take sufficient account of the infrastructure costs of securing the development that we are currently enjoying. If the Commonwealth Grants Commission took more account of our infrastructure needs, there would be a better deal for Western Australia. We are in there vigorously pursuing that issue. The last time that we vigorously pursued that issue was at the time of the last review, out of which we got an additional $250 million for Western Australia in annual GST share. The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
Mr G. Snook : He’s not been here that long. Mr E.S. RIPPER : His colleagues were here seven years ago and they include people who were in the cabinet that signed up to this deal. It was Richard Court, as Premier, who signed up to this deal, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warren-Blackwood and the member for Darling Range were members of the cabinet that signed that deal. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the members for Warren-Blackwood and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They have to bear responsibility for the consequences. Although the Leader of the Opposition, I am reminded, has been in this place for only a very short time—and does it not show—his organisation has remained mute on this issue for the past seven years. As I have said in this house in the past, the figures are quite disturbing. If our economy continues to outperform the economies of the other states, by 2011-12 we can expect, with 10.3 per cent of the nation’s population, to receive 6.2 per cent of the GST. What are we doing about it? An amount of $6 billion is being taken out of our finances and given to other states. It has to be recognised that $6 billion given to other states is a powerful barrier to reform. Nevertheless, there are avenues for us to secure a better deal for Western Australia. For example, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is reviewing its methodology. From our point of view, there is an error in its methodology because it does not take sufficient account of the infrastructure costs of securing the development that we are currently enjoying. If the Commonwealth Grants Commission took more account of our infrastructure needs, there would be a better deal for Western Australia. We are in there vigorously pursuing that issue. The last time that we vigorously pursued that issue was at the time of the last review, out of which we got an additional $250 million for Western Australia in annual GST share. The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : His colleagues were here seven years ago and they include people who were in the cabinet that signed up to this deal. It was Richard Court, as Premier, who signed up to this deal, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warren-Blackwood and the member for Darling Range were members of the cabinet that signed that deal. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the members for Warren-Blackwood and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They have to bear responsibility for the consequences. Although the Leader of the Opposition, I am reminded, has been in this place for only a very short time—and does it not show—his organisation has remained mute on this issue for the past seven years. As I have said in this house in the past, the figures are quite disturbing. If our economy continues to outperform the economies of the other states, by 2011-12 we can expect, with 10.3 per cent of the nation’s population, to receive 6.2 per cent of the GST. What are we doing about it? An amount of $6 billion is being taken out of our finances and given to other states. It has to be recognised that $6 billion given to other states is a powerful barrier to reform. Nevertheless, there are avenues for us to secure a better deal for Western Australia. For example, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is reviewing its methodology. From our point of view, there is an error in its methodology because it does not take sufficient account of the infrastructure costs of securing the development that we are currently enjoying. If the Commonwealth Grants Commission took more account of our infrastructure needs, there would be a better deal for Western Australia. We are in there vigorously pursuing that issue. The last time that we vigorously pursued that issue was at the time of the last review, out of which we got an additional $250 million for Western Australia in annual GST share. The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the members for Warren-Blackwood and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They have to bear responsibility for the consequences. Although the Leader of the Opposition, I am reminded, has been in this place for only a very short time—and does it not show—his organisation has remained mute on this issue for the past seven years. As I have said in this house in the past, the figures are quite disturbing. If our economy continues to outperform the economies of the other states, by 2011-12 we can expect, with 10.3 per cent of the nation’s population, to receive 6.2 per cent of the GST. What are we doing about it? An amount of $6 billion is being taken out of our finances and given to other states. It has to be recognised that $6 billion given to other states is a powerful barrier to reform. Nevertheless, there are avenues for us to secure a better deal for Western Australia. For example, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is reviewing its methodology. From our point of view, there is an error in its methodology because it does not take sufficient account of the infrastructure costs of securing the development that we are currently enjoying. If the Commonwealth Grants Commission took more account of our infrastructure needs, there would be a better deal for Western Australia. We are in there vigorously pursuing that issue. The last time that we vigorously pursued that issue was at the time of the last review, out of which we got an additional $250 million for Western Australia in annual GST share. The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
The SPEAKER : I call the members for Warren-Blackwood and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They have to bear responsibility for the consequences. Although the Leader of the Opposition, I am reminded, has been in this place for only a very short time—and does it not show—his organisation has remained mute on this issue for the past seven years. As I have said in this house in the past, the figures are quite disturbing. If our economy continues to outperform the economies of the other states, by 2011-12 we can expect, with 10.3 per cent of the nation’s population, to receive 6.2 per cent of the GST. What are we doing about it? An amount of $6 billion is being taken out of our finances and given to other states. It has to be recognised that $6 billion given to other states is a powerful barrier to reform. Nevertheless, there are avenues for us to secure a better deal for Western Australia. For example, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is reviewing its methodology. From our point of view, there is an error in its methodology because it does not take sufficient account of the infrastructure costs of securing the development that we are currently enjoying. If the Commonwealth Grants Commission took more account of our infrastructure needs, there would be a better deal for Western Australia. We are in there vigorously pursuing that issue. The last time that we vigorously pursued that issue was at the time of the last review, out of which we got an additional $250 million for Western Australia in annual GST share. The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : They have to bear responsibility for the consequences. Although the Leader of the Opposition, I am reminded, has been in this place for only a very short time—and does it not show—his organisation has remained mute on this issue for the past seven years. As I have said in this house in the past, the figures are quite disturbing. If our economy continues to outperform the economies of the other states, by 2011-12 we can expect, with 10.3 per cent of the nation’s population, to receive 6.2 per cent of the GST. What are we doing about it? An amount of $6 billion is being taken out of our finances and given to other states. It has to be recognised that $6 billion given to other states is a powerful barrier to reform. Nevertheless, there are avenues for us to secure a better deal for Western Australia. For example, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is reviewing its methodology. From our point of view, there is an error in its methodology because it does not take sufficient account of the infrastructure costs of securing the development that we are currently enjoying. If the Commonwealth Grants Commission took more account of our infrastructure needs, there would be a better deal for Western Australia. We are in there vigorously pursuing that issue. The last time that we vigorously pursued that issue was at the time of the last review, out of which we got an additional $250 million for Western Australia in annual GST share. The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
What are we doing about it? An amount of $6 billion is being taken out of our finances and given to other states. It has to be recognised that $6 billion given to other states is a powerful barrier to reform. Nevertheless, there are avenues for us to secure a better deal for Western Australia. For example, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is reviewing its methodology. From our point of view, there is an error in its methodology because it does not take sufficient account of the infrastructure costs of securing the development that we are currently enjoying. If the Commonwealth Grants Commission took more account of our infrastructure needs, there would be a better deal for Western Australia. We are in there vigorously pursuing that issue. The last time that we vigorously pursued that issue was at the time of the last review, out of which we got an additional $250 million for Western Australia in annual GST share. The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: It is interesting to see that opposition members, after seven long years, have at last discovered that there is an issue with Western Australia’s share of the goods and services tax. Have they not been listening to the speeches that are given in this place, have they not been paying attention in question time, have they not read the press releases and have they not read the budget speeches? We have been raising this issue year after year and making proper submissions nationally to get this issue addressed. It is amazing that right now the Leader of the Opposition, after seven years of being mute on this issue, would at last — Mr G. Snook : He’s not been here that long. Mr E.S. RIPPER : His colleagues were here seven years ago and they include people who were in the cabinet that signed up to this deal. It was Richard Court, as Premier, who signed up to this deal, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warren-Blackwood and the member for Darling Range were members of the cabinet that signed that deal. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the members for Warren-Blackwood and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They have to bear responsibility for the consequences. Although the Leader of the Opposition, I am reminded, has been in this place for only a very short time—and does it not show—his organisation has remained mute on this issue for the past seven years. As I have said in this house in the past, the figures are quite disturbing. If our economy continues to outperform the economies of the other states, by 2011-12 we can expect, with 10.3 per cent of the nation’s population, to receive 6.2 per cent of the GST. What are we doing about it? An amount of $6 billion is being taken out of our finances and given to other states. It has to be recognised that $6 billion given to other states is a powerful barrier to reform. Nevertheless, there are avenues for us to secure a better deal for Western Australia. For example, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is reviewing its methodology. From our point of view, there is an error in its methodology because it does not take sufficient account of the infrastructure costs of securing the development that we are currently enjoying. If the Commonwealth Grants Commission took more account of our infrastructure needs, there would be a better deal for Western Australia. We are in there vigorously pursuing that issue. The last time that we vigorously pursued that issue was at the time of the last review, out of which we got an additional $250 million for Western Australia in annual GST share. The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
It is interesting to see that opposition members, after seven long years, have at last discovered that there is an issue with Western Australia’s share of the goods and services tax. Have they not been listening to the speeches that are given in this place, have they not been paying attention in question time, have they not read the press releases and have they not read the budget speeches? We have been raising this issue year after year and making proper submissions nationally to get this issue addressed. It is amazing that right now the Leader of the Opposition, after seven years of being mute on this issue, would at last — Mr G. Snook : He’s not been here that long. Mr E.S. RIPPER : His colleagues were here seven years ago and they include people who were in the cabinet that signed up to this deal. It was Richard Court, as Premier, who signed up to this deal, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warren-Blackwood and the member for Darling Range were members of the cabinet that signed that deal. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the members for Warren-Blackwood and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They have to bear responsibility for the consequences. Although the Leader of the Opposition, I am reminded, has been in this place for only a very short time—and does it not show—his organisation has remained mute on this issue for the past seven years. As I have said in this house in the past, the figures are quite disturbing. If our economy continues to outperform the economies of the other states, by 2011-12 we can expect, with 10.3 per cent of the nation’s population, to receive 6.2 per cent of the GST. What are we doing about it? An amount of $6 billion is being taken out of our finances and given to other states. It has to be recognised that $6 billion given to other states is a powerful barrier to reform. Nevertheless, there are avenues for us to secure a better deal for Western Australia. For example, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is reviewing its methodology. From our point of view, there is an error in its methodology because it does not take sufficient account of the infrastructure costs of securing the development that we are currently enjoying. If the Commonwealth Grants Commission took more account of our infrastructure needs, there would be a better deal for Western Australia. We are in there vigorously pursuing that issue. The last time that we vigorously pursued that issue was at the time of the last review, out of which we got an additional $250 million for Western Australia in annual GST share. The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
Mr G. Snook : He’s not been here that long. Mr E.S. RIPPER : His colleagues were here seven years ago and they include people who were in the cabinet that signed up to this deal. It was Richard Court, as Premier, who signed up to this deal, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warren-Blackwood and the member for Darling Range were members of the cabinet that signed that deal. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the members for Warren-Blackwood and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They have to bear responsibility for the consequences. Although the Leader of the Opposition, I am reminded, has been in this place for only a very short time—and does it not show—his organisation has remained mute on this issue for the past seven years. As I have said in this house in the past, the figures are quite disturbing. If our economy continues to outperform the economies of the other states, by 2011-12 we can expect, with 10.3 per cent of the nation’s population, to receive 6.2 per cent of the GST. What are we doing about it? An amount of $6 billion is being taken out of our finances and given to other states. It has to be recognised that $6 billion given to other states is a powerful barrier to reform. Nevertheless, there are avenues for us to secure a better deal for Western Australia. For example, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is reviewing its methodology. From our point of view, there is an error in its methodology because it does not take sufficient account of the infrastructure costs of securing the development that we are currently enjoying. If the Commonwealth Grants Commission took more account of our infrastructure needs, there would be a better deal for Western Australia. We are in there vigorously pursuing that issue. The last time that we vigorously pursued that issue was at the time of the last review, out of which we got an additional $250 million for Western Australia in annual GST share. The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : His colleagues were here seven years ago and they include people who were in the cabinet that signed up to this deal. It was Richard Court, as Premier, who signed up to this deal, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warren-Blackwood and the member for Darling Range were members of the cabinet that signed that deal. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the members for Warren-Blackwood and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They have to bear responsibility for the consequences. Although the Leader of the Opposition, I am reminded, has been in this place for only a very short time—and does it not show—his organisation has remained mute on this issue for the past seven years. As I have said in this house in the past, the figures are quite disturbing. If our economy continues to outperform the economies of the other states, by 2011-12 we can expect, with 10.3 per cent of the nation’s population, to receive 6.2 per cent of the GST. What are we doing about it? An amount of $6 billion is being taken out of our finances and given to other states. It has to be recognised that $6 billion given to other states is a powerful barrier to reform. Nevertheless, there are avenues for us to secure a better deal for Western Australia. For example, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is reviewing its methodology. From our point of view, there is an error in its methodology because it does not take sufficient account of the infrastructure costs of securing the development that we are currently enjoying. If the Commonwealth Grants Commission took more account of our infrastructure needs, there would be a better deal for Western Australia. We are in there vigorously pursuing that issue. The last time that we vigorously pursued that issue was at the time of the last review, out of which we got an additional $250 million for Western Australia in annual GST share. The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the members for Warren-Blackwood and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They have to bear responsibility for the consequences. Although the Leader of the Opposition, I am reminded, has been in this place for only a very short time—and does it not show—his organisation has remained mute on this issue for the past seven years. As I have said in this house in the past, the figures are quite disturbing. If our economy continues to outperform the economies of the other states, by 2011-12 we can expect, with 10.3 per cent of the nation’s population, to receive 6.2 per cent of the GST. What are we doing about it? An amount of $6 billion is being taken out of our finances and given to other states. It has to be recognised that $6 billion given to other states is a powerful barrier to reform. Nevertheless, there are avenues for us to secure a better deal for Western Australia. For example, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is reviewing its methodology. From our point of view, there is an error in its methodology because it does not take sufficient account of the infrastructure costs of securing the development that we are currently enjoying. If the Commonwealth Grants Commission took more account of our infrastructure needs, there would be a better deal for Western Australia. We are in there vigorously pursuing that issue. The last time that we vigorously pursued that issue was at the time of the last review, out of which we got an additional $250 million for Western Australia in annual GST share. The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
The SPEAKER : I call the members for Warren-Blackwood and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : They have to bear responsibility for the consequences. Although the Leader of the Opposition, I am reminded, has been in this place for only a very short time—and does it not show—his organisation has remained mute on this issue for the past seven years. As I have said in this house in the past, the figures are quite disturbing. If our economy continues to outperform the economies of the other states, by 2011-12 we can expect, with 10.3 per cent of the nation’s population, to receive 6.2 per cent of the GST. What are we doing about it? An amount of $6 billion is being taken out of our finances and given to other states. It has to be recognised that $6 billion given to other states is a powerful barrier to reform. Nevertheless, there are avenues for us to secure a better deal for Western Australia. For example, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is reviewing its methodology. From our point of view, there is an error in its methodology because it does not take sufficient account of the infrastructure costs of securing the development that we are currently enjoying. If the Commonwealth Grants Commission took more account of our infrastructure needs, there would be a better deal for Western Australia. We are in there vigorously pursuing that issue. The last time that we vigorously pursued that issue was at the time of the last review, out of which we got an additional $250 million for Western Australia in annual GST share. The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : They have to bear responsibility for the consequences. Although the Leader of the Opposition, I am reminded, has been in this place for only a very short time—and does it not show—his organisation has remained mute on this issue for the past seven years. As I have said in this house in the past, the figures are quite disturbing. If our economy continues to outperform the economies of the other states, by 2011-12 we can expect, with 10.3 per cent of the nation’s population, to receive 6.2 per cent of the GST. What are we doing about it? An amount of $6 billion is being taken out of our finances and given to other states. It has to be recognised that $6 billion given to other states is a powerful barrier to reform. Nevertheless, there are avenues for us to secure a better deal for Western Australia. For example, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is reviewing its methodology. From our point of view, there is an error in its methodology because it does not take sufficient account of the infrastructure costs of securing the development that we are currently enjoying. If the Commonwealth Grants Commission took more account of our infrastructure needs, there would be a better deal for Western Australia. We are in there vigorously pursuing that issue. The last time that we vigorously pursued that issue was at the time of the last review, out of which we got an additional $250 million for Western Australia in annual GST share. The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
What are we doing about it? An amount of $6 billion is being taken out of our finances and given to other states. It has to be recognised that $6 billion given to other states is a powerful barrier to reform. Nevertheless, there are avenues for us to secure a better deal for Western Australia. For example, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is reviewing its methodology. From our point of view, there is an error in its methodology because it does not take sufficient account of the infrastructure costs of securing the development that we are currently enjoying. If the Commonwealth Grants Commission took more account of our infrastructure needs, there would be a better deal for Western Australia. We are in there vigorously pursuing that issue. The last time that we vigorously pursued that issue was at the time of the last review, out of which we got an additional $250 million for Western Australia in annual GST share. The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
The second way in which we can benefit is by direct commonwealth investment in our infrastructure. Unlike the Howard government, the Rudd federal Labor government has listened to our arguments on this issue. It has already said that there will be a Western Australian infrastructure fund, using the more than one-third rule, and an amount of $80 million was allocated to WA infrastructure in this financial year’s federal budget. Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned the Perth-Bunbury highway. Commonwealth funding of $160 million has been brought forward in the federal budget for the Perth-Bunbury highway and $35 million for the Harvey Water pipe project. We could not get that money out of the Howard government. It had billions of dollars set aside for water, and it would not give anything to Western Australia. However, the new federal government has responded to that issue. The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
The important thing about last night’s federal budget is that $40 billion has been set aside in infrastructure funds—for economic, health and education infrastructure. I expect that Western Australia will get much more than its population share of those infrastructure funds because of this state’s importance to the national economy. It makes sense from a national perspective to invest significantly in Western Australia because it is the fastest growing state, the powerhouse of the nation in export terms, and if the nation invests in Western Australia, there will be a better return to the nation as a whole than from investment in slower growing states. When a federal government sets aside $40 billion for infrastructure and one of the state’s infrastructure investment will return a huge benefit to the nation and that state has a need for a huge investment in infrastructure, that state government can be more confident about its share of those funds. Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
Mr T. Buswell : How confident are you? Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : I am very confident that we will get more than our population share of those funds. On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
On the question of infrastructure, I listened to the shadow Treasurer who said that there should be more investment in infrastructure. I would like to know how he proposes to fund it. The Leader of the Opposition objected to increases in debt to fund the infrastructure program. If the infrastructure program is not funded from debt, the surplus must be used. However, last year the Leader of the Opposition described the surplus as obscene. Members opposite speak with forked tongue on these issues.
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.