❓ Treasurer Ripper accuses the former Court government of financial mismanagement, specifically citing an unfunded commitment to the 'Beyond Blue' initiative made just before the election. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Barnett, defends the previous government and calls for a full examination of financial commitments.
AnsweredQoN 116Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
COURT GOVERNMENT, FINANCIAL LEGACY
I refer to a report in The West Australian of 5 June 2001 in which the former Premier defended his financial record and said that Labor was given a full Treasury briefing before the election. Can the Treasurer advise the House if the financial information on which the Government based its calculations was a true reflection of the coalition’s financial legacy? Mr RIPPER
I refer to a report in The West Australian of 5 June 2001 in which the former Premier defended his financial record and said that Labor was given a full Treasury briefing before the election. Can the Treasurer advise the House if the financial information on which the Government based its calculations was a true reflection of the coalition’s financial legacy? Mr RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
The former Premier is still in denial. No-one in the Opposition will take responsibility for the budget blow-out legacy that has been left to us. Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: That has got them going, Mr Speaker. So it should, because they should be ashamed about the deficit left to us by the former Government. The pre-election financial statements released by the Treasury at the beginning of the election campaign reflect the formal financial decisions made by the previous Government. Unfortunately, the statements do not reflect, and neither can a Treasury briefing, decisions which have not been funded or programs which have been under-funded. Mr Omodei: Did you get a briefing? Mr RIPPER: Yes, I got a briefing. As I have just said, the briefing, the estimates and the financial statements cannot take account of anything other than the formal financial decisions. The former Government made plenty of decisions but did not take into account the funding component of the decisions or it took into account only half. I give the Leader of the Opposition an example. In March 2000, the former Premier took a phone call from the former Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, about the national initiative for depression “Beyond Blue”. On 16 March 2000, Mr Kennett wrote a “Dear Richard” letter to the former Premier, thanking him for his support for the worthy cause and asking the State to indicate the financial contribution it would make. In June 2000, in another “Dear Richard” letter, Mr Kennett again asked the Government to financially support the initiative at least on a per capita basis of $343 000 per year for five years. On 16 October, there was yet another “Dear Richard” letter. The letter thanked the former Premier for his in-principle agreement and reminded him of the $341 768 per annum contribution required from Western Australia. What happened next? This was a worthy cause to which the Premier had given in-principle agreement. Did he deal with it, take it to the Cabinet or take it to the cabinet budget standing committee of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a member? No, he did not. Was it included in the forward estimates? No. He wrote to Mr Kennett confirming a contribution of more than $1 million for three years; he sought to commit the State over three years to over $1 million! I believe the House would be interested to know when the former Premier put the commitment in writing. When do members believe he signed the letter committing the State to $1 million? Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: He signed it on 9 January, the day before he called the election. I imagine quite a bit of signing went on that day. It might have been a very busy day. I wonder whether the present Leader of the Opposition signed some letters on that day. The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr RIPPER replied: The former Premier is still in denial. No-one in the Opposition will take responsibility for the budget blow-out legacy that has been left to us. Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: That has got them going, Mr Speaker. So it should, because they should be ashamed about the deficit left to us by the former Government. The pre-election financial statements released by the Treasury at the beginning of the election campaign reflect the formal financial decisions made by the previous Government. Unfortunately, the statements do not reflect, and neither can a Treasury briefing, decisions which have not been funded or programs which have been under-funded. Mr Omodei: Did you get a briefing? Mr RIPPER: Yes, I got a briefing. As I have just said, the briefing, the estimates and the financial statements cannot take account of anything other than the formal financial decisions. The former Government made plenty of decisions but did not take into account the funding component of the decisions or it took into account only half. I give the Leader of the Opposition an example. In March 2000, the former Premier took a phone call from the former Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, about the national initiative for depression “Beyond Blue”. On 16 March 2000, Mr Kennett wrote a “Dear Richard” letter to the former Premier, thanking him for his support for the worthy cause and asking the State to indicate the financial contribution it would make. In June 2000, in another “Dear Richard” letter, Mr Kennett again asked the Government to financially support the initiative at least on a per capita basis of $343 000 per year for five years. On 16 October, there was yet another “Dear Richard” letter. The letter thanked the former Premier for his in-principle agreement and reminded him of the $341 768 per annum contribution required from Western Australia. What happened next? This was a worthy cause to which the Premier had given in-principle agreement. Did he deal with it, take it to the Cabinet or take it to the cabinet budget standing committee of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a member? No, he did not. Was it included in the forward estimates? No. He wrote to Mr Kennett confirming a contribution of more than $1 million for three years; he sought to commit the State over three years to over $1 million! I believe the House would be interested to know when the former Premier put the commitment in writing. When do members believe he signed the letter committing the State to $1 million? Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: He signed it on 9 January, the day before he called the election. I imagine quite a bit of signing went on that day. It might have been a very busy day. I wonder whether the present Leader of the Opposition signed some letters on that day. The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
The former Premier is still in denial. No-one in the Opposition will take responsibility for the budget blow-out legacy that has been left to us. Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: That has got them going, Mr Speaker. So it should, because they should be ashamed about the deficit left to us by the former Government. The pre-election financial statements released by the Treasury at the beginning of the election campaign reflect the formal financial decisions made by the previous Government. Unfortunately, the statements do not reflect, and neither can a Treasury briefing, decisions which have not been funded or programs which have been under-funded. Mr Omodei: Did you get a briefing? Mr RIPPER: Yes, I got a briefing. As I have just said, the briefing, the estimates and the financial statements cannot take account of anything other than the formal financial decisions. The former Government made plenty of decisions but did not take into account the funding component of the decisions or it took into account only half. I give the Leader of the Opposition an example. In March 2000, the former Premier took a phone call from the former Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, about the national initiative for depression “Beyond Blue”. On 16 March 2000, Mr Kennett wrote a “Dear Richard” letter to the former Premier, thanking him for his support for the worthy cause and asking the State to indicate the financial contribution it would make. In June 2000, in another “Dear Richard” letter, Mr Kennett again asked the Government to financially support the initiative at least on a per capita basis of $343 000 per year for five years. On 16 October, there was yet another “Dear Richard” letter. The letter thanked the former Premier for his in-principle agreement and reminded him of the $341 768 per annum contribution required from Western Australia. What happened next? This was a worthy cause to which the Premier had given in-principle agreement. Did he deal with it, take it to the Cabinet or take it to the cabinet budget standing committee of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a member? No, he did not. Was it included in the forward estimates? No. He wrote to Mr Kennett confirming a contribution of more than $1 million for three years; he sought to commit the State over three years to over $1 million! I believe the House would be interested to know when the former Premier put the commitment in writing. When do members believe he signed the letter committing the State to $1 million? Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: He signed it on 9 January, the day before he called the election. I imagine quite a bit of signing went on that day. It might have been a very busy day. I wonder whether the present Leader of the Opposition signed some letters on that day. The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: That has got them going, Mr Speaker. So it should, because they should be ashamed about the deficit left to us by the former Government. The pre-election financial statements released by the Treasury at the beginning of the election campaign reflect the formal financial decisions made by the previous Government. Unfortunately, the statements do not reflect, and neither can a Treasury briefing, decisions which have not been funded or programs which have been under-funded. Mr Omodei: Did you get a briefing? Mr RIPPER: Yes, I got a briefing. As I have just said, the briefing, the estimates and the financial statements cannot take account of anything other than the formal financial decisions. The former Government made plenty of decisions but did not take into account the funding component of the decisions or it took into account only half. I give the Leader of the Opposition an example. In March 2000, the former Premier took a phone call from the former Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, about the national initiative for depression “Beyond Blue”. On 16 March 2000, Mr Kennett wrote a “Dear Richard” letter to the former Premier, thanking him for his support for the worthy cause and asking the State to indicate the financial contribution it would make. In June 2000, in another “Dear Richard” letter, Mr Kennett again asked the Government to financially support the initiative at least on a per capita basis of $343 000 per year for five years. On 16 October, there was yet another “Dear Richard” letter. The letter thanked the former Premier for his in-principle agreement and reminded him of the $341 768 per annum contribution required from Western Australia. What happened next? This was a worthy cause to which the Premier had given in-principle agreement. Did he deal with it, take it to the Cabinet or take it to the cabinet budget standing committee of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a member? No, he did not. Was it included in the forward estimates? No. He wrote to Mr Kennett confirming a contribution of more than $1 million for three years; he sought to commit the State over three years to over $1 million! I believe the House would be interested to know when the former Premier put the commitment in writing. When do members believe he signed the letter committing the State to $1 million? Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: He signed it on 9 January, the day before he called the election. I imagine quite a bit of signing went on that day. It might have been a very busy day. I wonder whether the present Leader of the Opposition signed some letters on that day. The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr RIPPER: That has got them going, Mr Speaker. So it should, because they should be ashamed about the deficit left to us by the former Government. The pre-election financial statements released by the Treasury at the beginning of the election campaign reflect the formal financial decisions made by the previous Government. Unfortunately, the statements do not reflect, and neither can a Treasury briefing, decisions which have not been funded or programs which have been under-funded. Mr Omodei: Did you get a briefing? Mr RIPPER: Yes, I got a briefing. As I have just said, the briefing, the estimates and the financial statements cannot take account of anything other than the formal financial decisions. The former Government made plenty of decisions but did not take into account the funding component of the decisions or it took into account only half. I give the Leader of the Opposition an example. In March 2000, the former Premier took a phone call from the former Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, about the national initiative for depression “Beyond Blue”. On 16 March 2000, Mr Kennett wrote a “Dear Richard” letter to the former Premier, thanking him for his support for the worthy cause and asking the State to indicate the financial contribution it would make. In June 2000, in another “Dear Richard” letter, Mr Kennett again asked the Government to financially support the initiative at least on a per capita basis of $343 000 per year for five years. On 16 October, there was yet another “Dear Richard” letter. The letter thanked the former Premier for his in-principle agreement and reminded him of the $341 768 per annum contribution required from Western Australia. What happened next? This was a worthy cause to which the Premier had given in-principle agreement. Did he deal with it, take it to the Cabinet or take it to the cabinet budget standing committee of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a member? No, he did not. Was it included in the forward estimates? No. He wrote to Mr Kennett confirming a contribution of more than $1 million for three years; he sought to commit the State over three years to over $1 million! I believe the House would be interested to know when the former Premier put the commitment in writing. When do members believe he signed the letter committing the State to $1 million? Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: He signed it on 9 January, the day before he called the election. I imagine quite a bit of signing went on that day. It might have been a very busy day. I wonder whether the present Leader of the Opposition signed some letters on that day. The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr Omodei: Did you get a briefing? Mr RIPPER: Yes, I got a briefing. As I have just said, the briefing, the estimates and the financial statements cannot take account of anything other than the formal financial decisions. The former Government made plenty of decisions but did not take into account the funding component of the decisions or it took into account only half. I give the Leader of the Opposition an example. In March 2000, the former Premier took a phone call from the former Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, about the national initiative for depression “Beyond Blue”. On 16 March 2000, Mr Kennett wrote a “Dear Richard” letter to the former Premier, thanking him for his support for the worthy cause and asking the State to indicate the financial contribution it would make. In June 2000, in another “Dear Richard” letter, Mr Kennett again asked the Government to financially support the initiative at least on a per capita basis of $343 000 per year for five years. On 16 October, there was yet another “Dear Richard” letter. The letter thanked the former Premier for his in-principle agreement and reminded him of the $341 768 per annum contribution required from Western Australia. What happened next? This was a worthy cause to which the Premier had given in-principle agreement. Did he deal with it, take it to the Cabinet or take it to the cabinet budget standing committee of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a member? No, he did not. Was it included in the forward estimates? No. He wrote to Mr Kennett confirming a contribution of more than $1 million for three years; he sought to commit the State over three years to over $1 million! I believe the House would be interested to know when the former Premier put the commitment in writing. When do members believe he signed the letter committing the State to $1 million? Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: He signed it on 9 January, the day before he called the election. I imagine quite a bit of signing went on that day. It might have been a very busy day. I wonder whether the present Leader of the Opposition signed some letters on that day. The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr RIPPER: Yes, I got a briefing. As I have just said, the briefing, the estimates and the financial statements cannot take account of anything other than the formal financial decisions. The former Government made plenty of decisions but did not take into account the funding component of the decisions or it took into account only half. I give the Leader of the Opposition an example. In March 2000, the former Premier took a phone call from the former Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, about the national initiative for depression “Beyond Blue”. On 16 March 2000, Mr Kennett wrote a “Dear Richard” letter to the former Premier, thanking him for his support for the worthy cause and asking the State to indicate the financial contribution it would make. In June 2000, in another “Dear Richard” letter, Mr Kennett again asked the Government to financially support the initiative at least on a per capita basis of $343 000 per year for five years. On 16 October, there was yet another “Dear Richard” letter. The letter thanked the former Premier for his in-principle agreement and reminded him of the $341 768 per annum contribution required from Western Australia. What happened next? This was a worthy cause to which the Premier had given in-principle agreement. Did he deal with it, take it to the Cabinet or take it to the cabinet budget standing committee of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a member? No, he did not. Was it included in the forward estimates? No. He wrote to Mr Kennett confirming a contribution of more than $1 million for three years; he sought to commit the State over three years to over $1 million! I believe the House would be interested to know when the former Premier put the commitment in writing. When do members believe he signed the letter committing the State to $1 million? Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: He signed it on 9 January, the day before he called the election. I imagine quite a bit of signing went on that day. It might have been a very busy day. I wonder whether the present Leader of the Opposition signed some letters on that day. The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: He signed it on 9 January, the day before he called the election. I imagine quite a bit of signing went on that day. It might have been a very busy day. I wonder whether the present Leader of the Opposition signed some letters on that day. The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr RIPPER: He signed it on 9 January, the day before he called the election. I imagine quite a bit of signing went on that day. It might have been a very busy day. I wonder whether the present Leader of the Opposition signed some letters on that day. The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
[See paper No 316.]
Mr RIPPER replied: The former Premier is still in denial. No-one in the Opposition will take responsibility for the budget blow-out legacy that has been left to us. Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: That has got them going, Mr Speaker. So it should, because they should be ashamed about the deficit left to us by the former Government. The pre-election financial statements released by the Treasury at the beginning of the election campaign reflect the formal financial decisions made by the previous Government. Unfortunately, the statements do not reflect, and neither can a Treasury briefing, decisions which have not been funded or programs which have been under-funded. Mr Omodei: Did you get a briefing? Mr RIPPER: Yes, I got a briefing. As I have just said, the briefing, the estimates and the financial statements cannot take account of anything other than the formal financial decisions. The former Government made plenty of decisions but did not take into account the funding component of the decisions or it took into account only half. I give the Leader of the Opposition an example. In March 2000, the former Premier took a phone call from the former Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, about the national initiative for depression “Beyond Blue”. On 16 March 2000, Mr Kennett wrote a “Dear Richard” letter to the former Premier, thanking him for his support for the worthy cause and asking the State to indicate the financial contribution it would make. In June 2000, in another “Dear Richard” letter, Mr Kennett again asked the Government to financially support the initiative at least on a per capita basis of $343 000 per year for five years. On 16 October, there was yet another “Dear Richard” letter. The letter thanked the former Premier for his in-principle agreement and reminded him of the $341 768 per annum contribution required from Western Australia. What happened next? This was a worthy cause to which the Premier had given in-principle agreement. Did he deal with it, take it to the Cabinet or take it to the cabinet budget standing committee of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a member? No, he did not. Was it included in the forward estimates? No. He wrote to Mr Kennett confirming a contribution of more than $1 million for three years; he sought to commit the State over three years to over $1 million! I believe the House would be interested to know when the former Premier put the commitment in writing. When do members believe he signed the letter committing the State to $1 million? Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: He signed it on 9 January, the day before he called the election. I imagine quite a bit of signing went on that day. It might have been a very busy day. I wonder whether the present Leader of the Opposition signed some letters on that day. The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
The former Premier is still in denial. No-one in the Opposition will take responsibility for the budget blow-out legacy that has been left to us. Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: That has got them going, Mr Speaker. So it should, because they should be ashamed about the deficit left to us by the former Government. The pre-election financial statements released by the Treasury at the beginning of the election campaign reflect the formal financial decisions made by the previous Government. Unfortunately, the statements do not reflect, and neither can a Treasury briefing, decisions which have not been funded or programs which have been under-funded. Mr Omodei: Did you get a briefing? Mr RIPPER: Yes, I got a briefing. As I have just said, the briefing, the estimates and the financial statements cannot take account of anything other than the formal financial decisions. The former Government made plenty of decisions but did not take into account the funding component of the decisions or it took into account only half. I give the Leader of the Opposition an example. In March 2000, the former Premier took a phone call from the former Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, about the national initiative for depression “Beyond Blue”. On 16 March 2000, Mr Kennett wrote a “Dear Richard” letter to the former Premier, thanking him for his support for the worthy cause and asking the State to indicate the financial contribution it would make. In June 2000, in another “Dear Richard” letter, Mr Kennett again asked the Government to financially support the initiative at least on a per capita basis of $343 000 per year for five years. On 16 October, there was yet another “Dear Richard” letter. The letter thanked the former Premier for his in-principle agreement and reminded him of the $341 768 per annum contribution required from Western Australia. What happened next? This was a worthy cause to which the Premier had given in-principle agreement. Did he deal with it, take it to the Cabinet or take it to the cabinet budget standing committee of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a member? No, he did not. Was it included in the forward estimates? No. He wrote to Mr Kennett confirming a contribution of more than $1 million for three years; he sought to commit the State over three years to over $1 million! I believe the House would be interested to know when the former Premier put the commitment in writing. When do members believe he signed the letter committing the State to $1 million? Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: He signed it on 9 January, the day before he called the election. I imagine quite a bit of signing went on that day. It might have been a very busy day. I wonder whether the present Leader of the Opposition signed some letters on that day. The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: That has got them going, Mr Speaker. So it should, because they should be ashamed about the deficit left to us by the former Government. The pre-election financial statements released by the Treasury at the beginning of the election campaign reflect the formal financial decisions made by the previous Government. Unfortunately, the statements do not reflect, and neither can a Treasury briefing, decisions which have not been funded or programs which have been under-funded. Mr Omodei: Did you get a briefing? Mr RIPPER: Yes, I got a briefing. As I have just said, the briefing, the estimates and the financial statements cannot take account of anything other than the formal financial decisions. The former Government made plenty of decisions but did not take into account the funding component of the decisions or it took into account only half. I give the Leader of the Opposition an example. In March 2000, the former Premier took a phone call from the former Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, about the national initiative for depression “Beyond Blue”. On 16 March 2000, Mr Kennett wrote a “Dear Richard” letter to the former Premier, thanking him for his support for the worthy cause and asking the State to indicate the financial contribution it would make. In June 2000, in another “Dear Richard” letter, Mr Kennett again asked the Government to financially support the initiative at least on a per capita basis of $343 000 per year for five years. On 16 October, there was yet another “Dear Richard” letter. The letter thanked the former Premier for his in-principle agreement and reminded him of the $341 768 per annum contribution required from Western Australia. What happened next? This was a worthy cause to which the Premier had given in-principle agreement. Did he deal with it, take it to the Cabinet or take it to the cabinet budget standing committee of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a member? No, he did not. Was it included in the forward estimates? No. He wrote to Mr Kennett confirming a contribution of more than $1 million for three years; he sought to commit the State over three years to over $1 million! I believe the House would be interested to know when the former Premier put the commitment in writing. When do members believe he signed the letter committing the State to $1 million? Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: He signed it on 9 January, the day before he called the election. I imagine quite a bit of signing went on that day. It might have been a very busy day. I wonder whether the present Leader of the Opposition signed some letters on that day. The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr RIPPER: That has got them going, Mr Speaker. So it should, because they should be ashamed about the deficit left to us by the former Government. The pre-election financial statements released by the Treasury at the beginning of the election campaign reflect the formal financial decisions made by the previous Government. Unfortunately, the statements do not reflect, and neither can a Treasury briefing, decisions which have not been funded or programs which have been under-funded. Mr Omodei: Did you get a briefing? Mr RIPPER: Yes, I got a briefing. As I have just said, the briefing, the estimates and the financial statements cannot take account of anything other than the formal financial decisions. The former Government made plenty of decisions but did not take into account the funding component of the decisions or it took into account only half. I give the Leader of the Opposition an example. In March 2000, the former Premier took a phone call from the former Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, about the national initiative for depression “Beyond Blue”. On 16 March 2000, Mr Kennett wrote a “Dear Richard” letter to the former Premier, thanking him for his support for the worthy cause and asking the State to indicate the financial contribution it would make. In June 2000, in another “Dear Richard” letter, Mr Kennett again asked the Government to financially support the initiative at least on a per capita basis of $343 000 per year for five years. On 16 October, there was yet another “Dear Richard” letter. The letter thanked the former Premier for his in-principle agreement and reminded him of the $341 768 per annum contribution required from Western Australia. What happened next? This was a worthy cause to which the Premier had given in-principle agreement. Did he deal with it, take it to the Cabinet or take it to the cabinet budget standing committee of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a member? No, he did not. Was it included in the forward estimates? No. He wrote to Mr Kennett confirming a contribution of more than $1 million for three years; he sought to commit the State over three years to over $1 million! I believe the House would be interested to know when the former Premier put the commitment in writing. When do members believe he signed the letter committing the State to $1 million? Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: He signed it on 9 January, the day before he called the election. I imagine quite a bit of signing went on that day. It might have been a very busy day. I wonder whether the present Leader of the Opposition signed some letters on that day. The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr Omodei: Did you get a briefing? Mr RIPPER: Yes, I got a briefing. As I have just said, the briefing, the estimates and the financial statements cannot take account of anything other than the formal financial decisions. The former Government made plenty of decisions but did not take into account the funding component of the decisions or it took into account only half. I give the Leader of the Opposition an example. In March 2000, the former Premier took a phone call from the former Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, about the national initiative for depression “Beyond Blue”. On 16 March 2000, Mr Kennett wrote a “Dear Richard” letter to the former Premier, thanking him for his support for the worthy cause and asking the State to indicate the financial contribution it would make. In June 2000, in another “Dear Richard” letter, Mr Kennett again asked the Government to financially support the initiative at least on a per capita basis of $343 000 per year for five years. On 16 October, there was yet another “Dear Richard” letter. The letter thanked the former Premier for his in-principle agreement and reminded him of the $341 768 per annum contribution required from Western Australia. What happened next? This was a worthy cause to which the Premier had given in-principle agreement. Did he deal with it, take it to the Cabinet or take it to the cabinet budget standing committee of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a member? No, he did not. Was it included in the forward estimates? No. He wrote to Mr Kennett confirming a contribution of more than $1 million for three years; he sought to commit the State over three years to over $1 million! I believe the House would be interested to know when the former Premier put the commitment in writing. When do members believe he signed the letter committing the State to $1 million? Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: He signed it on 9 January, the day before he called the election. I imagine quite a bit of signing went on that day. It might have been a very busy day. I wonder whether the present Leader of the Opposition signed some letters on that day. The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr RIPPER: Yes, I got a briefing. As I have just said, the briefing, the estimates and the financial statements cannot take account of anything other than the formal financial decisions. The former Government made plenty of decisions but did not take into account the funding component of the decisions or it took into account only half. I give the Leader of the Opposition an example. In March 2000, the former Premier took a phone call from the former Victorian Premier, Jeff Kennett, about the national initiative for depression “Beyond Blue”. On 16 March 2000, Mr Kennett wrote a “Dear Richard” letter to the former Premier, thanking him for his support for the worthy cause and asking the State to indicate the financial contribution it would make. In June 2000, in another “Dear Richard” letter, Mr Kennett again asked the Government to financially support the initiative at least on a per capita basis of $343 000 per year for five years. On 16 October, there was yet another “Dear Richard” letter. The letter thanked the former Premier for his in-principle agreement and reminded him of the $341 768 per annum contribution required from Western Australia. What happened next? This was a worthy cause to which the Premier had given in-principle agreement. Did he deal with it, take it to the Cabinet or take it to the cabinet budget standing committee of which the present Leader of the Opposition was a member? No, he did not. Was it included in the forward estimates? No. He wrote to Mr Kennett confirming a contribution of more than $1 million for three years; he sought to commit the State over three years to over $1 million! I believe the House would be interested to know when the former Premier put the commitment in writing. When do members believe he signed the letter committing the State to $1 million? Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: He signed it on 9 January, the day before he called the election. I imagine quite a bit of signing went on that day. It might have been a very busy day. I wonder whether the present Leader of the Opposition signed some letters on that day. The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Several members interjected. Mr RIPPER: He signed it on 9 January, the day before he called the election. I imagine quite a bit of signing went on that day. It might have been a very busy day. I wonder whether the present Leader of the Opposition signed some letters on that day. The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr RIPPER: He signed it on 9 January, the day before he called the election. I imagine quite a bit of signing went on that day. It might have been a very busy day. I wonder whether the present Leader of the Opposition signed some letters on that day. The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
The important point is that this matter had been in the pipeline since March 2000. Even before the last budget, the former Government was discussing this matter, but it did not put one cent aside in the forward estimates and it was not reflected in the pre-election financial statements. Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr Barnett: Will you table those two reports? Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr RIPPER: I will table the letter signed by the former Premier, Richard Court, on 9 January 2001. Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr Barnett: There are two reports; table them, let’s be fully accountable and let’s go through them. You won’t do that because they show how you misled the Parliament. Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr RIPPER: What I want to know, before the Leader of the Opposition goes right off the rails, is whether he agrees that it was appropriate financial management by the former Premier. Does he agree that it was proper practice of government to commit the Government to $1 million for the next three years the day before the former Premier knew he would call an election? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that was appropriate and does he support it? Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr Barnett: I support a full examination of the commitments of the previous Government and this Government, which can be assisted immediately by your tabling those two documents prepared by Treasury after the election. Table them now. Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr RIPPER: The Leader of the Opposition wants tabled all the advice given to the Government that goes to Cabinet? Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr Barnett: Absolutely; table the lot of them. Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
Mr RIPPER: He does not want the rules that applied to the previous Government to apply to him. The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
The Leader of the Opposition’s silence about the behaviour of the former Premier is indicative of his view of financial management. What we have here is calculated deceit by the previous Government. It hid the full extent of the budget-blow out that has been bequeathed to this incoming Government. [See paper No 316.]
[See paper No 316.]
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.