❓ Mr. Quigley questions the Treasurer about challenges from diminishing Commonwealth funding. Mr. Ripper responds critically, highlighting WA's strong financial position and accusing the Commonwealth of inadequate infrastructure investment and unfair funding distribution.
AnsweredQoN 398Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
COMMONWEALTH FUNDING 398. Mr J.R. QUIGLEY to the Treasurer: Can the Treasurer outline the challenges facing the state government in light of the ever-diminishing commonwealth funding? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
I think all members of this house, including members of the opposition, have been astounded that the Prime Minister has tried to blame the states for interest rate increases. The Prime Minister has accused the states - shock horror - of borrowing to build infrastructure. That is infrastructure that, of course, the commonwealth will not build. That accusation is particularly galling because this state has some of the lowest debt levels on record. In our general government sector, this state has positive financial assets, and no net debt. The accusation is particularly galling because the commonwealth does not step up to the plate when it comes to infrastructure, despite the fact that it collects seven times as much revenue as the state collects from a standard resources project. It is Western Australia’s resources projects, and the federal collection of taxation, that has helped produce the $17.3 billion surplus that the federal Treasurer trumpets. I will give members some of the figures. In order to compare the figures across the years, particularly across long time frames, we need to look at taxation as a percentage of gross domestic product. Commonwealth taxation in 2006-07 is 24.9 per cent of GDP. Eleven years ago, it was lower, at 22.3 per cent of GDP. Therefore, commonwealth taxation as a share of the nation’s economy has gone up on John Howard’s watch. I am sure Peter Costello would say that funding to the states from the commonwealth has risen from 5.9 per cent of GDP to 6.5 per cent of GDP. However, there is a very big catch. That catch is that that funding has come with conditions that have required us to give up collectively $13.9 billion-worth of our own taxation, or 1.3 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Exactly. When we do the calculation and add in the goods and services tax and take out the taxes that the states have forgone, our share of GDP on a net basis is now 5.2 per cent, whereas 11 years ago it was 5.9 per cent. Therefore, the states as a whole are losing $7.4 billion. Dr K.D. Hames : You have never had more money in your life! Mr E.S. RIPPER : No, it is less money - 5.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 5.9 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
COMMONWEALTH FUNDING
Can the Treasurer outline the challenges facing the state government in light of the ever-diminishing commonwealth funding? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I think all members of this house, including members of the opposition, have been astounded that the Prime Minister has tried to blame the states for interest rate increases. The Prime Minister has accused the states - shock horror - of borrowing to build infrastructure. That is infrastructure that, of course, the commonwealth will not build. That accusation is particularly galling because this state has some of the lowest debt levels on record. In our general government sector, this state has positive financial assets, and no net debt. The accusation is particularly galling because the commonwealth does not step up to the plate when it comes to infrastructure, despite the fact that it collects seven times as much revenue as the state collects from a standard resources project. It is Western Australia’s resources projects, and the federal collection of taxation, that has helped produce the $17.3 billion surplus that the federal Treasurer trumpets. I will give members some of the figures. In order to compare the figures across the years, particularly across long time frames, we need to look at taxation as a percentage of gross domestic product. Commonwealth taxation in 2006-07 is 24.9 per cent of GDP. Eleven years ago, it was lower, at 22.3 per cent of GDP. Therefore, commonwealth taxation as a share of the nation’s economy has gone up on John Howard’s watch. I am sure Peter Costello would say that funding to the states from the commonwealth has risen from 5.9 per cent of GDP to 6.5 per cent of GDP. However, there is a very big catch. That catch is that that funding has come with conditions that have required us to give up collectively $13.9 billion-worth of our own taxation, or 1.3 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Exactly. When we do the calculation and add in the goods and services tax and take out the taxes that the states have forgone, our share of GDP on a net basis is now 5.2 per cent, whereas 11 years ago it was 5.9 per cent. Therefore, the states as a whole are losing $7.4 billion. Dr K.D. Hames : You have never had more money in your life! Mr E.S. RIPPER : No, it is less money - 5.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 5.9 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I think all members of this house, including members of the opposition, have been astounded that the Prime Minister has tried to blame the states for interest rate increases. The Prime Minister has accused the states - shock horror - of borrowing to build infrastructure. That is infrastructure that, of course, the commonwealth will not build. That accusation is particularly galling because this state has some of the lowest debt levels on record. In our general government sector, this state has positive financial assets, and no net debt. The accusation is particularly galling because the commonwealth does not step up to the plate when it comes to infrastructure, despite the fact that it collects seven times as much revenue as the state collects from a standard resources project. It is Western Australia’s resources projects, and the federal collection of taxation, that has helped produce the $17.3 billion surplus that the federal Treasurer trumpets. I will give members some of the figures. In order to compare the figures across the years, particularly across long time frames, we need to look at taxation as a percentage of gross domestic product. Commonwealth taxation in 2006-07 is 24.9 per cent of GDP. Eleven years ago, it was lower, at 22.3 per cent of GDP. Therefore, commonwealth taxation as a share of the nation’s economy has gone up on John Howard’s watch. I am sure Peter Costello would say that funding to the states from the commonwealth has risen from 5.9 per cent of GDP to 6.5 per cent of GDP. However, there is a very big catch. That catch is that that funding has come with conditions that have required us to give up collectively $13.9 billion-worth of our own taxation, or 1.3 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Exactly. When we do the calculation and add in the goods and services tax and take out the taxes that the states have forgone, our share of GDP on a net basis is now 5.2 per cent, whereas 11 years ago it was 5.9 per cent. Therefore, the states as a whole are losing $7.4 billion. Dr K.D. Hames : You have never had more money in your life! Mr E.S. RIPPER : No, it is less money - 5.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 5.9 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
I think all members of this house, including members of the opposition, have been astounded that the Prime Minister has tried to blame the states for interest rate increases. The Prime Minister has accused the states - shock horror - of borrowing to build infrastructure. That is infrastructure that, of course, the commonwealth will not build. That accusation is particularly galling because this state has some of the lowest debt levels on record. In our general government sector, this state has positive financial assets, and no net debt. The accusation is particularly galling because the commonwealth does not step up to the plate when it comes to infrastructure, despite the fact that it collects seven times as much revenue as the state collects from a standard resources project. It is Western Australia’s resources projects, and the federal collection of taxation, that has helped produce the $17.3 billion surplus that the federal Treasurer trumpets. I will give members some of the figures. In order to compare the figures across the years, particularly across long time frames, we need to look at taxation as a percentage of gross domestic product. Commonwealth taxation in 2006-07 is 24.9 per cent of GDP. Eleven years ago, it was lower, at 22.3 per cent of GDP. Therefore, commonwealth taxation as a share of the nation’s economy has gone up on John Howard’s watch. I am sure Peter Costello would say that funding to the states from the commonwealth has risen from 5.9 per cent of GDP to 6.5 per cent of GDP. However, there is a very big catch. That catch is that that funding has come with conditions that have required us to give up collectively $13.9 billion-worth of our own taxation, or 1.3 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Exactly. When we do the calculation and add in the goods and services tax and take out the taxes that the states have forgone, our share of GDP on a net basis is now 5.2 per cent, whereas 11 years ago it was 5.9 per cent. Therefore, the states as a whole are losing $7.4 billion. Dr K.D. Hames : You have never had more money in your life! Mr E.S. RIPPER : No, it is less money - 5.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 5.9 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
I will give members some of the figures. In order to compare the figures across the years, particularly across long time frames, we need to look at taxation as a percentage of gross domestic product. Commonwealth taxation in 2006-07 is 24.9 per cent of GDP. Eleven years ago, it was lower, at 22.3 per cent of GDP. Therefore, commonwealth taxation as a share of the nation’s economy has gone up on John Howard’s watch. I am sure Peter Costello would say that funding to the states from the commonwealth has risen from 5.9 per cent of GDP to 6.5 per cent of GDP. However, there is a very big catch. That catch is that that funding has come with conditions that have required us to give up collectively $13.9 billion-worth of our own taxation, or 1.3 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Exactly. When we do the calculation and add in the goods and services tax and take out the taxes that the states have forgone, our share of GDP on a net basis is now 5.2 per cent, whereas 11 years ago it was 5.9 per cent. Therefore, the states as a whole are losing $7.4 billion. Dr K.D. Hames : You have never had more money in your life! Mr E.S. RIPPER : No, it is less money - 5.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 5.9 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Exactly. When we do the calculation and add in the goods and services tax and take out the taxes that the states have forgone, our share of GDP on a net basis is now 5.2 per cent, whereas 11 years ago it was 5.9 per cent. Therefore, the states as a whole are losing $7.4 billion. Dr K.D. Hames : You have never had more money in your life! Mr E.S. RIPPER : No, it is less money - 5.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 5.9 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Exactly. When we do the calculation and add in the goods and services tax and take out the taxes that the states have forgone, our share of GDP on a net basis is now 5.2 per cent, whereas 11 years ago it was 5.9 per cent. Therefore, the states as a whole are losing $7.4 billion. Dr K.D. Hames : You have never had more money in your life! Mr E.S. RIPPER : No, it is less money - 5.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 5.9 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Dr K.D. Hames : You have never had more money in your life! Mr E.S. RIPPER : No, it is less money - 5.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 5.9 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : No, it is less money - 5.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 5.9 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
COMMONWEALTH FUNDING
Can the Treasurer outline the challenges facing the state government in light of the ever-diminishing commonwealth funding? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I think all members of this house, including members of the opposition, have been astounded that the Prime Minister has tried to blame the states for interest rate increases. The Prime Minister has accused the states - shock horror - of borrowing to build infrastructure. That is infrastructure that, of course, the commonwealth will not build. That accusation is particularly galling because this state has some of the lowest debt levels on record. In our general government sector, this state has positive financial assets, and no net debt. The accusation is particularly galling because the commonwealth does not step up to the plate when it comes to infrastructure, despite the fact that it collects seven times as much revenue as the state collects from a standard resources project. It is Western Australia’s resources projects, and the federal collection of taxation, that has helped produce the $17.3 billion surplus that the federal Treasurer trumpets. I will give members some of the figures. In order to compare the figures across the years, particularly across long time frames, we need to look at taxation as a percentage of gross domestic product. Commonwealth taxation in 2006-07 is 24.9 per cent of GDP. Eleven years ago, it was lower, at 22.3 per cent of GDP. Therefore, commonwealth taxation as a share of the nation’s economy has gone up on John Howard’s watch. I am sure Peter Costello would say that funding to the states from the commonwealth has risen from 5.9 per cent of GDP to 6.5 per cent of GDP. However, there is a very big catch. That catch is that that funding has come with conditions that have required us to give up collectively $13.9 billion-worth of our own taxation, or 1.3 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Exactly. When we do the calculation and add in the goods and services tax and take out the taxes that the states have forgone, our share of GDP on a net basis is now 5.2 per cent, whereas 11 years ago it was 5.9 per cent. Therefore, the states as a whole are losing $7.4 billion. Dr K.D. Hames : You have never had more money in your life! Mr E.S. RIPPER : No, it is less money - 5.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 5.9 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I think all members of this house, including members of the opposition, have been astounded that the Prime Minister has tried to blame the states for interest rate increases. The Prime Minister has accused the states - shock horror - of borrowing to build infrastructure. That is infrastructure that, of course, the commonwealth will not build. That accusation is particularly galling because this state has some of the lowest debt levels on record. In our general government sector, this state has positive financial assets, and no net debt. The accusation is particularly galling because the commonwealth does not step up to the plate when it comes to infrastructure, despite the fact that it collects seven times as much revenue as the state collects from a standard resources project. It is Western Australia’s resources projects, and the federal collection of taxation, that has helped produce the $17.3 billion surplus that the federal Treasurer trumpets. I will give members some of the figures. In order to compare the figures across the years, particularly across long time frames, we need to look at taxation as a percentage of gross domestic product. Commonwealth taxation in 2006-07 is 24.9 per cent of GDP. Eleven years ago, it was lower, at 22.3 per cent of GDP. Therefore, commonwealth taxation as a share of the nation’s economy has gone up on John Howard’s watch. I am sure Peter Costello would say that funding to the states from the commonwealth has risen from 5.9 per cent of GDP to 6.5 per cent of GDP. However, there is a very big catch. That catch is that that funding has come with conditions that have required us to give up collectively $13.9 billion-worth of our own taxation, or 1.3 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Exactly. When we do the calculation and add in the goods and services tax and take out the taxes that the states have forgone, our share of GDP on a net basis is now 5.2 per cent, whereas 11 years ago it was 5.9 per cent. Therefore, the states as a whole are losing $7.4 billion. Dr K.D. Hames : You have never had more money in your life! Mr E.S. RIPPER : No, it is less money - 5.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 5.9 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
I think all members of this house, including members of the opposition, have been astounded that the Prime Minister has tried to blame the states for interest rate increases. The Prime Minister has accused the states - shock horror - of borrowing to build infrastructure. That is infrastructure that, of course, the commonwealth will not build. That accusation is particularly galling because this state has some of the lowest debt levels on record. In our general government sector, this state has positive financial assets, and no net debt. The accusation is particularly galling because the commonwealth does not step up to the plate when it comes to infrastructure, despite the fact that it collects seven times as much revenue as the state collects from a standard resources project. It is Western Australia’s resources projects, and the federal collection of taxation, that has helped produce the $17.3 billion surplus that the federal Treasurer trumpets. I will give members some of the figures. In order to compare the figures across the years, particularly across long time frames, we need to look at taxation as a percentage of gross domestic product. Commonwealth taxation in 2006-07 is 24.9 per cent of GDP. Eleven years ago, it was lower, at 22.3 per cent of GDP. Therefore, commonwealth taxation as a share of the nation’s economy has gone up on John Howard’s watch. I am sure Peter Costello would say that funding to the states from the commonwealth has risen from 5.9 per cent of GDP to 6.5 per cent of GDP. However, there is a very big catch. That catch is that that funding has come with conditions that have required us to give up collectively $13.9 billion-worth of our own taxation, or 1.3 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Exactly. When we do the calculation and add in the goods and services tax and take out the taxes that the states have forgone, our share of GDP on a net basis is now 5.2 per cent, whereas 11 years ago it was 5.9 per cent. Therefore, the states as a whole are losing $7.4 billion. Dr K.D. Hames : You have never had more money in your life! Mr E.S. RIPPER : No, it is less money - 5.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 5.9 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
I will give members some of the figures. In order to compare the figures across the years, particularly across long time frames, we need to look at taxation as a percentage of gross domestic product. Commonwealth taxation in 2006-07 is 24.9 per cent of GDP. Eleven years ago, it was lower, at 22.3 per cent of GDP. Therefore, commonwealth taxation as a share of the nation’s economy has gone up on John Howard’s watch. I am sure Peter Costello would say that funding to the states from the commonwealth has risen from 5.9 per cent of GDP to 6.5 per cent of GDP. However, there is a very big catch. That catch is that that funding has come with conditions that have required us to give up collectively $13.9 billion-worth of our own taxation, or 1.3 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Exactly. When we do the calculation and add in the goods and services tax and take out the taxes that the states have forgone, our share of GDP on a net basis is now 5.2 per cent, whereas 11 years ago it was 5.9 per cent. Therefore, the states as a whole are losing $7.4 billion. Dr K.D. Hames : You have never had more money in your life! Mr E.S. RIPPER : No, it is less money - 5.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 5.9 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Exactly. When we do the calculation and add in the goods and services tax and take out the taxes that the states have forgone, our share of GDP on a net basis is now 5.2 per cent, whereas 11 years ago it was 5.9 per cent. Therefore, the states as a whole are losing $7.4 billion. Dr K.D. Hames : You have never had more money in your life! Mr E.S. RIPPER : No, it is less money - 5.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 5.9 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Exactly. When we do the calculation and add in the goods and services tax and take out the taxes that the states have forgone, our share of GDP on a net basis is now 5.2 per cent, whereas 11 years ago it was 5.9 per cent. Therefore, the states as a whole are losing $7.4 billion. Dr K.D. Hames : You have never had more money in your life! Mr E.S. RIPPER : No, it is less money - 5.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 5.9 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Dr K.D. Hames : You have never had more money in your life! Mr E.S. RIPPER : No, it is less money - 5.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 5.9 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : No, it is less money - 5.2 per cent of GDP, compared with 5.9 per cent of GDP. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : That is the point. The member for Dawesville should listen to the argument rather than focus on stereotypes. The amount of $7.4 billion a year is being taken from the states. Western Australia’s share is $740 million. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Dr K.D. Hames interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The member for Dawesville should listen. If the commonwealth government had maintained funding at previous gross domestic product levels - the levels it inherited 11 years ago - WA would have received an extra $740 million in 2006-07. Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Dr K.D. Hames : Does that include money they pay directly - Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : It is the money that comes to the states as a share of GDP. Not only the Howard government is to blame; there is a long-term trend that is not good for the states. In the early eighties funding for the states was 8.1 per cent of GDP. It has fallen from 8.1 per cent of GDP in the early eighties to 5.2 per cent in 2006-07. That is a total funding cut to the states of $30 billion in 2006-07 terms, or about $3 billion for Western Australia. We see the federal Treasurer talking about his $17 billion surplus, grinning, smirking and looking pretty happy. However, it is built on that extra share of GDP taken by the commonwealth in its taxation, and the lesser share that goes to the states. It is built on a pretty poor infrastructure performance. The commonwealth spends $317 per capita, nationally, on the purchase of non-financial assets; whereas Western Australia is spending $2 154 per capita in this state on our purchase of non-financial assets. The federal government is spending two per cent of its expenses on infrastructure and we are spending 21 per cent of our expenses on infrastructure - 21 per cent by us and two per cent by the federal government. We can see who is carrying the load for the national economy, who is investing in infrastructure and who is not. Western Australia is carrying the load for the national economy and the Western Australian government is investing in infrastructure. The assertion by the commonwealth on the back of its ripping off the states is just astounding. In fact, I find it galling that the Prime Minister can make those sorts of allegations given the commonwealth’s record of ripping off the states during his tenure.
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.