❓ Question regarding media speculation about a luxury property tax and stamp duty increases. The Treasurer neither confirms nor denies, highlighting budget cuts and blaming the previous government's financial management.
AnsweredQoN 336Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
LUXURY PROPERTY TAX, AND STAMP DUTY INCREASES 336. Mr McGOWAN to the Treasurer: Is the Treasurer aware of media speculation that the budget will contain a millionaire’s land tax and increases in stamp duty? Mr RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
I am aware of these media reports, and, like the Premier, I will not confirm or deny any budget speculation. The revenue measures in the budget on Thursday will be fair and modest and will target those with the capacity to pay. I must correct the statement made in an ABC television report last night that the revenue measures were required to fund the Government’s election commitments. The SPEAKER: The member for Moore! Mr RIPPER: That is not so. The budget includes more than $850 million worth of cuts, and those savings are being used to fund the Government’s election commitments. The problem is not the Government’s election commitments; it is well known, and can be described with three words, which I will repeat for the benefit of the press gallery: Barnett’s budget blow-out. The revenue measures pursued by this Government will have a modest four-year impact - The SPEAKER: The member for Darling Range! Mr RIPPER: They will be sensitive to the fact that business has been knocked about by the goods and services tax. The Premier has just gone through the revenue hikes of the previous Government, and the present Government’s revenue measures will pale into insignificance compared with those. I have had some advice on revenue matters, which I will share with the House. It is advice about the record of the previous Government. I am pleased to advise the Leader of the Opposition - Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I ask whether you will extend question time. The House has heard two answers, including a large amount of extraneous material, and neither of them has answered the question asked. Each answer has taken in excess of five minutes. The SPEAKER: The point of order is that the answers are lasting too long. I will determine how long question time will last. It may be that question time will last a little longer than normal, and it may be that it will be cut short, if the interjections continue. I call the member for Peel to order for the first time for speaking while I am on my feet. The Treasurer has the floor. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to quote from the advice I have received. He might be particularly sensitive, because the advice has come from a member of the Opposition. There is a rat in the opposition ranks. Perhaps there is more than one rat; however, only one has written to me on this matter. This is what the rat said in his letter to me - . . . in the preceding five years, the Stamp Duty for Medium Priced Residential Properties has risen by 50%. Given that in the corresponding time frame the prices of these properties have only risen by 23% this Stamp Duty has become inequitable. Point of Order Mr DAY: I ask the minister to table the obviously official document from which he is quoting. The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
LUXURY PROPERTY TAX, AND STAMP DUTY INCREASES
Is the Treasurer aware of media speculation that the budget will contain a millionaire’s land tax and increases in stamp duty? Mr RIPPER replied: I am aware of these media reports, and, like the Premier, I will not confirm or deny any budget speculation. The revenue measures in the budget on Thursday will be fair and modest and will target those with the capacity to pay. I must correct the statement made in an ABC television report last night that the revenue measures were required to fund the Government’s election commitments. The SPEAKER: The member for Moore! Mr RIPPER: That is not so. The budget includes more than $850 million worth of cuts, and those savings are being used to fund the Government’s election commitments. The problem is not the Government’s election commitments; it is well known, and can be described with three words, which I will repeat for the benefit of the press gallery: Barnett’s budget blow-out. The revenue measures pursued by this Government will have a modest four-year impact - The SPEAKER: The member for Darling Range! Mr RIPPER: They will be sensitive to the fact that business has been knocked about by the goods and services tax. The Premier has just gone through the revenue hikes of the previous Government, and the present Government’s revenue measures will pale into insignificance compared with those. I have had some advice on revenue matters, which I will share with the House. It is advice about the record of the previous Government. I am pleased to advise the Leader of the Opposition - Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I ask whether you will extend question time. The House has heard two answers, including a large amount of extraneous material, and neither of them has answered the question asked. Each answer has taken in excess of five minutes. The SPEAKER: The point of order is that the answers are lasting too long. I will determine how long question time will last. It may be that question time will last a little longer than normal, and it may be that it will be cut short, if the interjections continue. I call the member for Peel to order for the first time for speaking while I am on my feet. The Treasurer has the floor. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to quote from the advice I have received. He might be particularly sensitive, because the advice has come from a member of the Opposition. There is a rat in the opposition ranks. Perhaps there is more than one rat; however, only one has written to me on this matter. This is what the rat said in his letter to me - . . . in the preceding five years, the Stamp Duty for Medium Priced Residential Properties has risen by 50%. Given that in the corresponding time frame the prices of these properties have only risen by 23% this Stamp Duty has become inequitable. Point of Order Mr DAY: I ask the minister to table the obviously official document from which he is quoting. The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
Mr RIPPER replied: I am aware of these media reports, and, like the Premier, I will not confirm or deny any budget speculation. The revenue measures in the budget on Thursday will be fair and modest and will target those with the capacity to pay. I must correct the statement made in an ABC television report last night that the revenue measures were required to fund the Government’s election commitments. The SPEAKER: The member for Moore! Mr RIPPER: That is not so. The budget includes more than $850 million worth of cuts, and those savings are being used to fund the Government’s election commitments. The problem is not the Government’s election commitments; it is well known, and can be described with three words, which I will repeat for the benefit of the press gallery: Barnett’s budget blow-out. The revenue measures pursued by this Government will have a modest four-year impact - The SPEAKER: The member for Darling Range! Mr RIPPER: They will be sensitive to the fact that business has been knocked about by the goods and services tax. The Premier has just gone through the revenue hikes of the previous Government, and the present Government’s revenue measures will pale into insignificance compared with those. I have had some advice on revenue matters, which I will share with the House. It is advice about the record of the previous Government. I am pleased to advise the Leader of the Opposition - Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I ask whether you will extend question time. The House has heard two answers, including a large amount of extraneous material, and neither of them has answered the question asked. Each answer has taken in excess of five minutes. The SPEAKER: The point of order is that the answers are lasting too long. I will determine how long question time will last. It may be that question time will last a little longer than normal, and it may be that it will be cut short, if the interjections continue. I call the member for Peel to order for the first time for speaking while I am on my feet. The Treasurer has the floor. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to quote from the advice I have received. He might be particularly sensitive, because the advice has come from a member of the Opposition. There is a rat in the opposition ranks. Perhaps there is more than one rat; however, only one has written to me on this matter. This is what the rat said in his letter to me - . . . in the preceding five years, the Stamp Duty for Medium Priced Residential Properties has risen by 50%. Given that in the corresponding time frame the prices of these properties have only risen by 23% this Stamp Duty has become inequitable. Point of Order Mr DAY: I ask the minister to table the obviously official document from which he is quoting. The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
I am aware of these media reports, and, like the Premier, I will not confirm or deny any budget speculation. The revenue measures in the budget on Thursday will be fair and modest and will target those with the capacity to pay. I must correct the statement made in an ABC television report last night that the revenue measures were required to fund the Government’s election commitments. The SPEAKER: The member for Moore! Mr RIPPER: That is not so. The budget includes more than $850 million worth of cuts, and those savings are being used to fund the Government’s election commitments. The problem is not the Government’s election commitments; it is well known, and can be described with three words, which I will repeat for the benefit of the press gallery: Barnett’s budget blow-out. The revenue measures pursued by this Government will have a modest four-year impact - The SPEAKER: The member for Darling Range! Mr RIPPER: They will be sensitive to the fact that business has been knocked about by the goods and services tax. The Premier has just gone through the revenue hikes of the previous Government, and the present Government’s revenue measures will pale into insignificance compared with those. I have had some advice on revenue matters, which I will share with the House. It is advice about the record of the previous Government. I am pleased to advise the Leader of the Opposition - Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I ask whether you will extend question time. The House has heard two answers, including a large amount of extraneous material, and neither of them has answered the question asked. Each answer has taken in excess of five minutes. The SPEAKER: The point of order is that the answers are lasting too long. I will determine how long question time will last. It may be that question time will last a little longer than normal, and it may be that it will be cut short, if the interjections continue. I call the member for Peel to order for the first time for speaking while I am on my feet. The Treasurer has the floor. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to quote from the advice I have received. He might be particularly sensitive, because the advice has come from a member of the Opposition. There is a rat in the opposition ranks. Perhaps there is more than one rat; however, only one has written to me on this matter. This is what the rat said in his letter to me - . . . in the preceding five years, the Stamp Duty for Medium Priced Residential Properties has risen by 50%. Given that in the corresponding time frame the prices of these properties have only risen by 23% this Stamp Duty has become inequitable. Point of Order Mr DAY: I ask the minister to table the obviously official document from which he is quoting. The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
The SPEAKER: The member for Moore! Mr RIPPER: That is not so. The budget includes more than $850 million worth of cuts, and those savings are being used to fund the Government’s election commitments. The problem is not the Government’s election commitments; it is well known, and can be described with three words, which I will repeat for the benefit of the press gallery: Barnett’s budget blow-out. The revenue measures pursued by this Government will have a modest four-year impact - The SPEAKER: The member for Darling Range! Mr RIPPER: They will be sensitive to the fact that business has been knocked about by the goods and services tax. The Premier has just gone through the revenue hikes of the previous Government, and the present Government’s revenue measures will pale into insignificance compared with those. I have had some advice on revenue matters, which I will share with the House. It is advice about the record of the previous Government. I am pleased to advise the Leader of the Opposition - Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I ask whether you will extend question time. The House has heard two answers, including a large amount of extraneous material, and neither of them has answered the question asked. Each answer has taken in excess of five minutes. The SPEAKER: The point of order is that the answers are lasting too long. I will determine how long question time will last. It may be that question time will last a little longer than normal, and it may be that it will be cut short, if the interjections continue. I call the member for Peel to order for the first time for speaking while I am on my feet. The Treasurer has the floor. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to quote from the advice I have received. He might be particularly sensitive, because the advice has come from a member of the Opposition. There is a rat in the opposition ranks. Perhaps there is more than one rat; however, only one has written to me on this matter. This is what the rat said in his letter to me - . . . in the preceding five years, the Stamp Duty for Medium Priced Residential Properties has risen by 50%. Given that in the corresponding time frame the prices of these properties have only risen by 23% this Stamp Duty has become inequitable. Point of Order Mr DAY: I ask the minister to table the obviously official document from which he is quoting. The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
Mr RIPPER: That is not so. The budget includes more than $850 million worth of cuts, and those savings are being used to fund the Government’s election commitments. The problem is not the Government’s election commitments; it is well known, and can be described with three words, which I will repeat for the benefit of the press gallery: Barnett’s budget blow-out. The revenue measures pursued by this Government will have a modest four-year impact - The SPEAKER: The member for Darling Range! Mr RIPPER: They will be sensitive to the fact that business has been knocked about by the goods and services tax. The Premier has just gone through the revenue hikes of the previous Government, and the present Government’s revenue measures will pale into insignificance compared with those. I have had some advice on revenue matters, which I will share with the House. It is advice about the record of the previous Government. I am pleased to advise the Leader of the Opposition - Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I ask whether you will extend question time. The House has heard two answers, including a large amount of extraneous material, and neither of them has answered the question asked. Each answer has taken in excess of five minutes. The SPEAKER: The point of order is that the answers are lasting too long. I will determine how long question time will last. It may be that question time will last a little longer than normal, and it may be that it will be cut short, if the interjections continue. I call the member for Peel to order for the first time for speaking while I am on my feet. The Treasurer has the floor. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to quote from the advice I have received. He might be particularly sensitive, because the advice has come from a member of the Opposition. There is a rat in the opposition ranks. Perhaps there is more than one rat; however, only one has written to me on this matter. This is what the rat said in his letter to me - . . . in the preceding five years, the Stamp Duty for Medium Priced Residential Properties has risen by 50%. Given that in the corresponding time frame the prices of these properties have only risen by 23% this Stamp Duty has become inequitable. Point of Order Mr DAY: I ask the minister to table the obviously official document from which he is quoting. The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
The SPEAKER: The member for Darling Range! Mr RIPPER: They will be sensitive to the fact that business has been knocked about by the goods and services tax. The Premier has just gone through the revenue hikes of the previous Government, and the present Government’s revenue measures will pale into insignificance compared with those. I have had some advice on revenue matters, which I will share with the House. It is advice about the record of the previous Government. I am pleased to advise the Leader of the Opposition - Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I ask whether you will extend question time. The House has heard two answers, including a large amount of extraneous material, and neither of them has answered the question asked. Each answer has taken in excess of five minutes. The SPEAKER: The point of order is that the answers are lasting too long. I will determine how long question time will last. It may be that question time will last a little longer than normal, and it may be that it will be cut short, if the interjections continue. I call the member for Peel to order for the first time for speaking while I am on my feet. The Treasurer has the floor. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to quote from the advice I have received. He might be particularly sensitive, because the advice has come from a member of the Opposition. There is a rat in the opposition ranks. Perhaps there is more than one rat; however, only one has written to me on this matter. This is what the rat said in his letter to me - . . . in the preceding five years, the Stamp Duty for Medium Priced Residential Properties has risen by 50%. Given that in the corresponding time frame the prices of these properties have only risen by 23% this Stamp Duty has become inequitable. Point of Order Mr DAY: I ask the minister to table the obviously official document from which he is quoting. The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
Mr RIPPER: They will be sensitive to the fact that business has been knocked about by the goods and services tax. The Premier has just gone through the revenue hikes of the previous Government, and the present Government’s revenue measures will pale into insignificance compared with those. I have had some advice on revenue matters, which I will share with the House. It is advice about the record of the previous Government. I am pleased to advise the Leader of the Opposition - Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I ask whether you will extend question time. The House has heard two answers, including a large amount of extraneous material, and neither of them has answered the question asked. Each answer has taken in excess of five minutes. The SPEAKER: The point of order is that the answers are lasting too long. I will determine how long question time will last. It may be that question time will last a little longer than normal, and it may be that it will be cut short, if the interjections continue. I call the member for Peel to order for the first time for speaking while I am on my feet. The Treasurer has the floor. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to quote from the advice I have received. He might be particularly sensitive, because the advice has come from a member of the Opposition. There is a rat in the opposition ranks. Perhaps there is more than one rat; however, only one has written to me on this matter. This is what the rat said in his letter to me - . . . in the preceding five years, the Stamp Duty for Medium Priced Residential Properties has risen by 50%. Given that in the corresponding time frame the prices of these properties have only risen by 23% this Stamp Duty has become inequitable. Point of Order Mr DAY: I ask the minister to table the obviously official document from which he is quoting. The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
The SPEAKER: The point of order is that the answers are lasting too long. I will determine how long question time will last. It may be that question time will last a little longer than normal, and it may be that it will be cut short, if the interjections continue. I call the member for Peel to order for the first time for speaking while I am on my feet. The Treasurer has the floor. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to quote from the advice I have received. He might be particularly sensitive, because the advice has come from a member of the Opposition. There is a rat in the opposition ranks. Perhaps there is more than one rat; however, only one has written to me on this matter. This is what the rat said in his letter to me - . . . in the preceding five years, the Stamp Duty for Medium Priced Residential Properties has risen by 50%. Given that in the corresponding time frame the prices of these properties have only risen by 23% this Stamp Duty has become inequitable. Point of Order Mr DAY: I ask the minister to table the obviously official document from which he is quoting. The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
[See paper No 584.]
LUXURY PROPERTY TAX, AND STAMP DUTY INCREASES
Is the Treasurer aware of media speculation that the budget will contain a millionaire’s land tax and increases in stamp duty? Mr RIPPER replied: I am aware of these media reports, and, like the Premier, I will not confirm or deny any budget speculation. The revenue measures in the budget on Thursday will be fair and modest and will target those with the capacity to pay. I must correct the statement made in an ABC television report last night that the revenue measures were required to fund the Government’s election commitments. The SPEAKER: The member for Moore! Mr RIPPER: That is not so. The budget includes more than $850 million worth of cuts, and those savings are being used to fund the Government’s election commitments. The problem is not the Government’s election commitments; it is well known, and can be described with three words, which I will repeat for the benefit of the press gallery: Barnett’s budget blow-out. The revenue measures pursued by this Government will have a modest four-year impact - The SPEAKER: The member for Darling Range! Mr RIPPER: They will be sensitive to the fact that business has been knocked about by the goods and services tax. The Premier has just gone through the revenue hikes of the previous Government, and the present Government’s revenue measures will pale into insignificance compared with those. I have had some advice on revenue matters, which I will share with the House. It is advice about the record of the previous Government. I am pleased to advise the Leader of the Opposition - Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I ask whether you will extend question time. The House has heard two answers, including a large amount of extraneous material, and neither of them has answered the question asked. Each answer has taken in excess of five minutes. The SPEAKER: The point of order is that the answers are lasting too long. I will determine how long question time will last. It may be that question time will last a little longer than normal, and it may be that it will be cut short, if the interjections continue. I call the member for Peel to order for the first time for speaking while I am on my feet. The Treasurer has the floor. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to quote from the advice I have received. He might be particularly sensitive, because the advice has come from a member of the Opposition. There is a rat in the opposition ranks. Perhaps there is more than one rat; however, only one has written to me on this matter. This is what the rat said in his letter to me - . . . in the preceding five years, the Stamp Duty for Medium Priced Residential Properties has risen by 50%. Given that in the corresponding time frame the prices of these properties have only risen by 23% this Stamp Duty has become inequitable. Point of Order Mr DAY: I ask the minister to table the obviously official document from which he is quoting. The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
Mr RIPPER replied: I am aware of these media reports, and, like the Premier, I will not confirm or deny any budget speculation. The revenue measures in the budget on Thursday will be fair and modest and will target those with the capacity to pay. I must correct the statement made in an ABC television report last night that the revenue measures were required to fund the Government’s election commitments. The SPEAKER: The member for Moore! Mr RIPPER: That is not so. The budget includes more than $850 million worth of cuts, and those savings are being used to fund the Government’s election commitments. The problem is not the Government’s election commitments; it is well known, and can be described with three words, which I will repeat for the benefit of the press gallery: Barnett’s budget blow-out. The revenue measures pursued by this Government will have a modest four-year impact - The SPEAKER: The member for Darling Range! Mr RIPPER: They will be sensitive to the fact that business has been knocked about by the goods and services tax. The Premier has just gone through the revenue hikes of the previous Government, and the present Government’s revenue measures will pale into insignificance compared with those. I have had some advice on revenue matters, which I will share with the House. It is advice about the record of the previous Government. I am pleased to advise the Leader of the Opposition - Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I ask whether you will extend question time. The House has heard two answers, including a large amount of extraneous material, and neither of them has answered the question asked. Each answer has taken in excess of five minutes. The SPEAKER: The point of order is that the answers are lasting too long. I will determine how long question time will last. It may be that question time will last a little longer than normal, and it may be that it will be cut short, if the interjections continue. I call the member for Peel to order for the first time for speaking while I am on my feet. The Treasurer has the floor. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to quote from the advice I have received. He might be particularly sensitive, because the advice has come from a member of the Opposition. There is a rat in the opposition ranks. Perhaps there is more than one rat; however, only one has written to me on this matter. This is what the rat said in his letter to me - . . . in the preceding five years, the Stamp Duty for Medium Priced Residential Properties has risen by 50%. Given that in the corresponding time frame the prices of these properties have only risen by 23% this Stamp Duty has become inequitable. Point of Order Mr DAY: I ask the minister to table the obviously official document from which he is quoting. The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
I am aware of these media reports, and, like the Premier, I will not confirm or deny any budget speculation. The revenue measures in the budget on Thursday will be fair and modest and will target those with the capacity to pay. I must correct the statement made in an ABC television report last night that the revenue measures were required to fund the Government’s election commitments. The SPEAKER: The member for Moore! Mr RIPPER: That is not so. The budget includes more than $850 million worth of cuts, and those savings are being used to fund the Government’s election commitments. The problem is not the Government’s election commitments; it is well known, and can be described with three words, which I will repeat for the benefit of the press gallery: Barnett’s budget blow-out. The revenue measures pursued by this Government will have a modest four-year impact - The SPEAKER: The member for Darling Range! Mr RIPPER: They will be sensitive to the fact that business has been knocked about by the goods and services tax. The Premier has just gone through the revenue hikes of the previous Government, and the present Government’s revenue measures will pale into insignificance compared with those. I have had some advice on revenue matters, which I will share with the House. It is advice about the record of the previous Government. I am pleased to advise the Leader of the Opposition - Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I ask whether you will extend question time. The House has heard two answers, including a large amount of extraneous material, and neither of them has answered the question asked. Each answer has taken in excess of five minutes. The SPEAKER: The point of order is that the answers are lasting too long. I will determine how long question time will last. It may be that question time will last a little longer than normal, and it may be that it will be cut short, if the interjections continue. I call the member for Peel to order for the first time for speaking while I am on my feet. The Treasurer has the floor. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to quote from the advice I have received. He might be particularly sensitive, because the advice has come from a member of the Opposition. There is a rat in the opposition ranks. Perhaps there is more than one rat; however, only one has written to me on this matter. This is what the rat said in his letter to me - . . . in the preceding five years, the Stamp Duty for Medium Priced Residential Properties has risen by 50%. Given that in the corresponding time frame the prices of these properties have only risen by 23% this Stamp Duty has become inequitable. Point of Order Mr DAY: I ask the minister to table the obviously official document from which he is quoting. The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
The SPEAKER: The member for Moore! Mr RIPPER: That is not so. The budget includes more than $850 million worth of cuts, and those savings are being used to fund the Government’s election commitments. The problem is not the Government’s election commitments; it is well known, and can be described with three words, which I will repeat for the benefit of the press gallery: Barnett’s budget blow-out. The revenue measures pursued by this Government will have a modest four-year impact - The SPEAKER: The member for Darling Range! Mr RIPPER: They will be sensitive to the fact that business has been knocked about by the goods and services tax. The Premier has just gone through the revenue hikes of the previous Government, and the present Government’s revenue measures will pale into insignificance compared with those. I have had some advice on revenue matters, which I will share with the House. It is advice about the record of the previous Government. I am pleased to advise the Leader of the Opposition - Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I ask whether you will extend question time. The House has heard two answers, including a large amount of extraneous material, and neither of them has answered the question asked. Each answer has taken in excess of five minutes. The SPEAKER: The point of order is that the answers are lasting too long. I will determine how long question time will last. It may be that question time will last a little longer than normal, and it may be that it will be cut short, if the interjections continue. I call the member for Peel to order for the first time for speaking while I am on my feet. The Treasurer has the floor. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to quote from the advice I have received. He might be particularly sensitive, because the advice has come from a member of the Opposition. There is a rat in the opposition ranks. Perhaps there is more than one rat; however, only one has written to me on this matter. This is what the rat said in his letter to me - . . . in the preceding five years, the Stamp Duty for Medium Priced Residential Properties has risen by 50%. Given that in the corresponding time frame the prices of these properties have only risen by 23% this Stamp Duty has become inequitable. Point of Order Mr DAY: I ask the minister to table the obviously official document from which he is quoting. The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
Mr RIPPER: That is not so. The budget includes more than $850 million worth of cuts, and those savings are being used to fund the Government’s election commitments. The problem is not the Government’s election commitments; it is well known, and can be described with three words, which I will repeat for the benefit of the press gallery: Barnett’s budget blow-out. The revenue measures pursued by this Government will have a modest four-year impact - The SPEAKER: The member for Darling Range! Mr RIPPER: They will be sensitive to the fact that business has been knocked about by the goods and services tax. The Premier has just gone through the revenue hikes of the previous Government, and the present Government’s revenue measures will pale into insignificance compared with those. I have had some advice on revenue matters, which I will share with the House. It is advice about the record of the previous Government. I am pleased to advise the Leader of the Opposition - Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I ask whether you will extend question time. The House has heard two answers, including a large amount of extraneous material, and neither of them has answered the question asked. Each answer has taken in excess of five minutes. The SPEAKER: The point of order is that the answers are lasting too long. I will determine how long question time will last. It may be that question time will last a little longer than normal, and it may be that it will be cut short, if the interjections continue. I call the member for Peel to order for the first time for speaking while I am on my feet. The Treasurer has the floor. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to quote from the advice I have received. He might be particularly sensitive, because the advice has come from a member of the Opposition. There is a rat in the opposition ranks. Perhaps there is more than one rat; however, only one has written to me on this matter. This is what the rat said in his letter to me - . . . in the preceding five years, the Stamp Duty for Medium Priced Residential Properties has risen by 50%. Given that in the corresponding time frame the prices of these properties have only risen by 23% this Stamp Duty has become inequitable. Point of Order Mr DAY: I ask the minister to table the obviously official document from which he is quoting. The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
The SPEAKER: The member for Darling Range! Mr RIPPER: They will be sensitive to the fact that business has been knocked about by the goods and services tax. The Premier has just gone through the revenue hikes of the previous Government, and the present Government’s revenue measures will pale into insignificance compared with those. I have had some advice on revenue matters, which I will share with the House. It is advice about the record of the previous Government. I am pleased to advise the Leader of the Opposition - Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I ask whether you will extend question time. The House has heard two answers, including a large amount of extraneous material, and neither of them has answered the question asked. Each answer has taken in excess of five minutes. The SPEAKER: The point of order is that the answers are lasting too long. I will determine how long question time will last. It may be that question time will last a little longer than normal, and it may be that it will be cut short, if the interjections continue. I call the member for Peel to order for the first time for speaking while I am on my feet. The Treasurer has the floor. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to quote from the advice I have received. He might be particularly sensitive, because the advice has come from a member of the Opposition. There is a rat in the opposition ranks. Perhaps there is more than one rat; however, only one has written to me on this matter. This is what the rat said in his letter to me - . . . in the preceding five years, the Stamp Duty for Medium Priced Residential Properties has risen by 50%. Given that in the corresponding time frame the prices of these properties have only risen by 23% this Stamp Duty has become inequitable. Point of Order Mr DAY: I ask the minister to table the obviously official document from which he is quoting. The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
Mr RIPPER: They will be sensitive to the fact that business has been knocked about by the goods and services tax. The Premier has just gone through the revenue hikes of the previous Government, and the present Government’s revenue measures will pale into insignificance compared with those. I have had some advice on revenue matters, which I will share with the House. It is advice about the record of the previous Government. I am pleased to advise the Leader of the Opposition - Point of Order Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I ask whether you will extend question time. The House has heard two answers, including a large amount of extraneous material, and neither of them has answered the question asked. Each answer has taken in excess of five minutes. The SPEAKER: The point of order is that the answers are lasting too long. I will determine how long question time will last. It may be that question time will last a little longer than normal, and it may be that it will be cut short, if the interjections continue. I call the member for Peel to order for the first time for speaking while I am on my feet. The Treasurer has the floor. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to quote from the advice I have received. He might be particularly sensitive, because the advice has come from a member of the Opposition. There is a rat in the opposition ranks. Perhaps there is more than one rat; however, only one has written to me on this matter. This is what the rat said in his letter to me - . . . in the preceding five years, the Stamp Duty for Medium Priced Residential Properties has risen by 50%. Given that in the corresponding time frame the prices of these properties have only risen by 23% this Stamp Duty has become inequitable. Point of Order Mr DAY: I ask the minister to table the obviously official document from which he is quoting. The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
The SPEAKER: The point of order is that the answers are lasting too long. I will determine how long question time will last. It may be that question time will last a little longer than normal, and it may be that it will be cut short, if the interjections continue. I call the member for Peel to order for the first time for speaking while I am on my feet. The Treasurer has the floor. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr RIPPER: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to quote from the advice I have received. He might be particularly sensitive, because the advice has come from a member of the Opposition. There is a rat in the opposition ranks. Perhaps there is more than one rat; however, only one has written to me on this matter. This is what the rat said in his letter to me - . . . in the preceding five years, the Stamp Duty for Medium Priced Residential Properties has risen by 50%. Given that in the corresponding time frame the prices of these properties have only risen by 23% this Stamp Duty has become inequitable. Point of Order Mr DAY: I ask the minister to table the obviously official document from which he is quoting. The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
The SPEAKER: That is a request. If the Treasurer is quoting from an official document, he should table that document. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr Gallop interjected. Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
Mr RIPPER: I will be very happy at the conclusion of my answer to table the source document from which I am quoting. I will run through some of the advice that has come from the opposition rat. He goes on to say - . . . in 1998, the then State Government announced a 16% increase in property transfer stamp duty. The rat is right. In that year the Court Government increased taxes to the tune of $218 million a year - that is in 2001 dollars. That was made up of three separate stamp duty increases. Who do members think was the rat? Was it the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? No, it was not. It was my favourite member - the member for Kalgoorlie. What a shame he is not here today, but I assume he will be here on Thursday. I think he will be pleasantly surprised by the budget. This Government will be much more responsible in its approach to revenue-raising matters than was the previous Government. I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
I table the letter from the member for Kalgoorlie. [See paper No 584.]
[See paper No 584.]
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.