❓ Opposition questions the WA government's conservative oil price forecasts in the state budget, suggesting manipulation for revenue padding. Treasurer defends the forecasts as based on professional Treasury advice and prudent risk management.
AnsweredQoN 255Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Treasurer to the 2005-06 state budget taxation revenues, which are predicated on an oil price of $US40 in 2005-06 and just $US30 in the out years. (1) Why does the government forecast oil prices to fall from today’s price of $US52 to $US40 in 2005-06, and to $US30 down the track, when respected analysts, including Macquarie Bank and UBS Investment Bank, predict that oil prices will remain at least at $US43, not $US30, right through to 2006, and will hold in 2005-06? (2) Is not this just a cynical attempt by the government to underestimate and featherbed its budget revenue forecast for the fifth time in a row? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) Let me get this right! We cook the books to make our finances look worse than they are! That seems to be the proposition the opposition is putting! It is a dreadful conspiracy! Labor and the Treasury have got together to make the books look worse! Dear me! As I said in answer to a previous question, at one level it is laughable; at another level it is deeply offensive. We have always relied on the professional advice of our Department of Treasury and Finance officers when we make these revenue projections. We do not get in there, as apparently the member opposite would, and fiddle the books and tweak the estimates and the projections to get the result that we want. We let Treasury make a professional analysis of these matters, and we take its advice. I do not mind if Treasury’s advice is conservative. One would expect a Department of Treasury and Finance worthy of that name to be conservative in its estimates. Imagine the circumstance if a Treasury was imprudent and over-optimistic in its assessment of revenues and a government made financial commitments on that basis. We can pursue this matter in more detail in the estimates. However, I note that many analysts of oil prices are saying there is a risk premium in the oil price at the moment that is based not on the balance between supply and demand but on people’s estimate of political and social conditions in various oil-producing countries. If that risk premium went out of the oil price, we might get back to a much lower oil price. I will not base the books on false optimism. I will do nothing other than rely on the professional advice of the Department of Treasury and Finance when it comes to these matters.
(1) Why does the government forecast oil prices to fall from today’s price of $US52 to $US40 in 2005-06, and to $US30 down the track, when respected analysts, including Macquarie Bank and UBS Investment Bank, predict that oil prices will remain at least at $US43, not $US30, right through to 2006, and will hold in 2005-06? (2) Is not this just a cynical attempt by the government to underestimate and featherbed its budget revenue forecast for the fifth time in a row? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Let me get this right! We cook the books to make our finances look worse than they are! That seems to be the proposition the opposition is putting! It is a dreadful conspiracy! Labor and the Treasury have got together to make the books look worse! Dear me! As I said in answer to a previous question, at one level it is laughable; at another level it is deeply offensive. We have always relied on the professional advice of our Department of Treasury and Finance officers when we make these revenue projections. We do not get in there, as apparently the member opposite would, and fiddle the books and tweak the estimates and the projections to get the result that we want. We let Treasury make a professional analysis of these matters, and we take its advice. I do not mind if Treasury’s advice is conservative. One would expect a Department of Treasury and Finance worthy of that name to be conservative in its estimates. Imagine the circumstance if a Treasury was imprudent and over-optimistic in its assessment of revenues and a government made financial commitments on that basis. We can pursue this matter in more detail in the estimates. However, I note that many analysts of oil prices are saying there is a risk premium in the oil price at the moment that is based not on the balance between supply and demand but on people’s estimate of political and social conditions in various oil-producing countries. If that risk premium went out of the oil price, we might get back to a much lower oil price. I will not base the books on false optimism. I will do nothing other than rely on the professional advice of the Department of Treasury and Finance when it comes to these matters.
(2) Is not this just a cynical attempt by the government to underestimate and featherbed its budget revenue forecast for the fifth time in a row? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Let me get this right! We cook the books to make our finances look worse than they are! That seems to be the proposition the opposition is putting! It is a dreadful conspiracy! Labor and the Treasury have got together to make the books look worse! Dear me! As I said in answer to a previous question, at one level it is laughable; at another level it is deeply offensive. We have always relied on the professional advice of our Department of Treasury and Finance officers when we make these revenue projections. We do not get in there, as apparently the member opposite would, and fiddle the books and tweak the estimates and the projections to get the result that we want. We let Treasury make a professional analysis of these matters, and we take its advice. I do not mind if Treasury’s advice is conservative. One would expect a Department of Treasury and Finance worthy of that name to be conservative in its estimates. Imagine the circumstance if a Treasury was imprudent and over-optimistic in its assessment of revenues and a government made financial commitments on that basis. We can pursue this matter in more detail in the estimates. However, I note that many analysts of oil prices are saying there is a risk premium in the oil price at the moment that is based not on the balance between supply and demand but on people’s estimate of political and social conditions in various oil-producing countries. If that risk premium went out of the oil price, we might get back to a much lower oil price. I will not base the books on false optimism. I will do nothing other than rely on the professional advice of the Department of Treasury and Finance when it comes to these matters.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Let me get this right! We cook the books to make our finances look worse than they are! That seems to be the proposition the opposition is putting! It is a dreadful conspiracy! Labor and the Treasury have got together to make the books look worse! Dear me! As I said in answer to a previous question, at one level it is laughable; at another level it is deeply offensive. We have always relied on the professional advice of our Department of Treasury and Finance officers when we make these revenue projections. We do not get in there, as apparently the member opposite would, and fiddle the books and tweak the estimates and the projections to get the result that we want. We let Treasury make a professional analysis of these matters, and we take its advice. I do not mind if Treasury’s advice is conservative. One would expect a Department of Treasury and Finance worthy of that name to be conservative in its estimates. Imagine the circumstance if a Treasury was imprudent and over-optimistic in its assessment of revenues and a government made financial commitments on that basis. We can pursue this matter in more detail in the estimates. However, I note that many analysts of oil prices are saying there is a risk premium in the oil price at the moment that is based not on the balance between supply and demand but on people’s estimate of political and social conditions in various oil-producing countries. If that risk premium went out of the oil price, we might get back to a much lower oil price. I will not base the books on false optimism. I will do nothing other than rely on the professional advice of the Department of Treasury and Finance when it comes to these matters.
The SPEAKER : Order! Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Let me get this right! We cook the books to make our finances look worse than they are! That seems to be the proposition the opposition is putting! It is a dreadful conspiracy! Labor and the Treasury have got together to make the books look worse! Dear me! As I said in answer to a previous question, at one level it is laughable; at another level it is deeply offensive. We have always relied on the professional advice of our Department of Treasury and Finance officers when we make these revenue projections. We do not get in there, as apparently the member opposite would, and fiddle the books and tweak the estimates and the projections to get the result that we want. We let Treasury make a professional analysis of these matters, and we take its advice. I do not mind if Treasury’s advice is conservative. One would expect a Department of Treasury and Finance worthy of that name to be conservative in its estimates. Imagine the circumstance if a Treasury was imprudent and over-optimistic in its assessment of revenues and a government made financial commitments on that basis. We can pursue this matter in more detail in the estimates. However, I note that many analysts of oil prices are saying there is a risk premium in the oil price at the moment that is based not on the balance between supply and demand but on people’s estimate of political and social conditions in various oil-producing countries. If that risk premium went out of the oil price, we might get back to a much lower oil price. I will not base the books on false optimism. I will do nothing other than rely on the professional advice of the Department of Treasury and Finance when it comes to these matters.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Let me get this right! We cook the books to make our finances look worse than they are! That seems to be the proposition the opposition is putting! It is a dreadful conspiracy! Labor and the Treasury have got together to make the books look worse! Dear me! As I said in answer to a previous question, at one level it is laughable; at another level it is deeply offensive. We have always relied on the professional advice of our Department of Treasury and Finance officers when we make these revenue projections. We do not get in there, as apparently the member opposite would, and fiddle the books and tweak the estimates and the projections to get the result that we want. We let Treasury make a professional analysis of these matters, and we take its advice. I do not mind if Treasury’s advice is conservative. One would expect a Department of Treasury and Finance worthy of that name to be conservative in its estimates. Imagine the circumstance if a Treasury was imprudent and over-optimistic in its assessment of revenues and a government made financial commitments on that basis. We can pursue this matter in more detail in the estimates. However, I note that many analysts of oil prices are saying there is a risk premium in the oil price at the moment that is based not on the balance between supply and demand but on people’s estimate of political and social conditions in various oil-producing countries. If that risk premium went out of the oil price, we might get back to a much lower oil price. I will not base the books on false optimism. I will do nothing other than rely on the professional advice of the Department of Treasury and Finance when it comes to these matters.
(1)-(2) Let me get this right! We cook the books to make our finances look worse than they are! That seems to be the proposition the opposition is putting! It is a dreadful conspiracy! Labor and the Treasury have got together to make the books look worse! Dear me! As I said in answer to a previous question, at one level it is laughable; at another level it is deeply offensive. We have always relied on the professional advice of our Department of Treasury and Finance officers when we make these revenue projections. We do not get in there, as apparently the member opposite would, and fiddle the books and tweak the estimates and the projections to get the result that we want. We let Treasury make a professional analysis of these matters, and we take its advice. I do not mind if Treasury’s advice is conservative. One would expect a Department of Treasury and Finance worthy of that name to be conservative in its estimates. Imagine the circumstance if a Treasury was imprudent and over-optimistic in its assessment of revenues and a government made financial commitments on that basis. We can pursue this matter in more detail in the estimates. However, I note that many analysts of oil prices are saying there is a risk premium in the oil price at the moment that is based not on the balance between supply and demand but on people’s estimate of political and social conditions in various oil-producing countries. If that risk premium went out of the oil price, we might get back to a much lower oil price. I will not base the books on false optimism. I will do nothing other than rely on the professional advice of the Department of Treasury and Finance when it comes to these matters.
(1) Why does the government forecast oil prices to fall from today’s price of $US52 to $US40 in 2005-06, and to $US30 down the track, when respected analysts, including Macquarie Bank and UBS Investment Bank, predict that oil prices will remain at least at $US43, not $US30, right through to 2006, and will hold in 2005-06? (2) Is not this just a cynical attempt by the government to underestimate and featherbed its budget revenue forecast for the fifth time in a row? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Let me get this right! We cook the books to make our finances look worse than they are! That seems to be the proposition the opposition is putting! It is a dreadful conspiracy! Labor and the Treasury have got together to make the books look worse! Dear me! As I said in answer to a previous question, at one level it is laughable; at another level it is deeply offensive. We have always relied on the professional advice of our Department of Treasury and Finance officers when we make these revenue projections. We do not get in there, as apparently the member opposite would, and fiddle the books and tweak the estimates and the projections to get the result that we want. We let Treasury make a professional analysis of these matters, and we take its advice. I do not mind if Treasury’s advice is conservative. One would expect a Department of Treasury and Finance worthy of that name to be conservative in its estimates. Imagine the circumstance if a Treasury was imprudent and over-optimistic in its assessment of revenues and a government made financial commitments on that basis. We can pursue this matter in more detail in the estimates. However, I note that many analysts of oil prices are saying there is a risk premium in the oil price at the moment that is based not on the balance between supply and demand but on people’s estimate of political and social conditions in various oil-producing countries. If that risk premium went out of the oil price, we might get back to a much lower oil price. I will not base the books on false optimism. I will do nothing other than rely on the professional advice of the Department of Treasury and Finance when it comes to these matters.
(2) Is not this just a cynical attempt by the government to underestimate and featherbed its budget revenue forecast for the fifth time in a row? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Let me get this right! We cook the books to make our finances look worse than they are! That seems to be the proposition the opposition is putting! It is a dreadful conspiracy! Labor and the Treasury have got together to make the books look worse! Dear me! As I said in answer to a previous question, at one level it is laughable; at another level it is deeply offensive. We have always relied on the professional advice of our Department of Treasury and Finance officers when we make these revenue projections. We do not get in there, as apparently the member opposite would, and fiddle the books and tweak the estimates and the projections to get the result that we want. We let Treasury make a professional analysis of these matters, and we take its advice. I do not mind if Treasury’s advice is conservative. One would expect a Department of Treasury and Finance worthy of that name to be conservative in its estimates. Imagine the circumstance if a Treasury was imprudent and over-optimistic in its assessment of revenues and a government made financial commitments on that basis. We can pursue this matter in more detail in the estimates. However, I note that many analysts of oil prices are saying there is a risk premium in the oil price at the moment that is based not on the balance between supply and demand but on people’s estimate of political and social conditions in various oil-producing countries. If that risk premium went out of the oil price, we might get back to a much lower oil price. I will not base the books on false optimism. I will do nothing other than rely on the professional advice of the Department of Treasury and Finance when it comes to these matters.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Let me get this right! We cook the books to make our finances look worse than they are! That seems to be the proposition the opposition is putting! It is a dreadful conspiracy! Labor and the Treasury have got together to make the books look worse! Dear me! As I said in answer to a previous question, at one level it is laughable; at another level it is deeply offensive. We have always relied on the professional advice of our Department of Treasury and Finance officers when we make these revenue projections. We do not get in there, as apparently the member opposite would, and fiddle the books and tweak the estimates and the projections to get the result that we want. We let Treasury make a professional analysis of these matters, and we take its advice. I do not mind if Treasury’s advice is conservative. One would expect a Department of Treasury and Finance worthy of that name to be conservative in its estimates. Imagine the circumstance if a Treasury was imprudent and over-optimistic in its assessment of revenues and a government made financial commitments on that basis. We can pursue this matter in more detail in the estimates. However, I note that many analysts of oil prices are saying there is a risk premium in the oil price at the moment that is based not on the balance between supply and demand but on people’s estimate of political and social conditions in various oil-producing countries. If that risk premium went out of the oil price, we might get back to a much lower oil price. I will not base the books on false optimism. I will do nothing other than rely on the professional advice of the Department of Treasury and Finance when it comes to these matters.
The SPEAKER : Order! Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Let me get this right! We cook the books to make our finances look worse than they are! That seems to be the proposition the opposition is putting! It is a dreadful conspiracy! Labor and the Treasury have got together to make the books look worse! Dear me! As I said in answer to a previous question, at one level it is laughable; at another level it is deeply offensive. We have always relied on the professional advice of our Department of Treasury and Finance officers when we make these revenue projections. We do not get in there, as apparently the member opposite would, and fiddle the books and tweak the estimates and the projections to get the result that we want. We let Treasury make a professional analysis of these matters, and we take its advice. I do not mind if Treasury’s advice is conservative. One would expect a Department of Treasury and Finance worthy of that name to be conservative in its estimates. Imagine the circumstance if a Treasury was imprudent and over-optimistic in its assessment of revenues and a government made financial commitments on that basis. We can pursue this matter in more detail in the estimates. However, I note that many analysts of oil prices are saying there is a risk premium in the oil price at the moment that is based not on the balance between supply and demand but on people’s estimate of political and social conditions in various oil-producing countries. If that risk premium went out of the oil price, we might get back to a much lower oil price. I will not base the books on false optimism. I will do nothing other than rely on the professional advice of the Department of Treasury and Finance when it comes to these matters.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Let me get this right! We cook the books to make our finances look worse than they are! That seems to be the proposition the opposition is putting! It is a dreadful conspiracy! Labor and the Treasury have got together to make the books look worse! Dear me! As I said in answer to a previous question, at one level it is laughable; at another level it is deeply offensive. We have always relied on the professional advice of our Department of Treasury and Finance officers when we make these revenue projections. We do not get in there, as apparently the member opposite would, and fiddle the books and tweak the estimates and the projections to get the result that we want. We let Treasury make a professional analysis of these matters, and we take its advice. I do not mind if Treasury’s advice is conservative. One would expect a Department of Treasury and Finance worthy of that name to be conservative in its estimates. Imagine the circumstance if a Treasury was imprudent and over-optimistic in its assessment of revenues and a government made financial commitments on that basis. We can pursue this matter in more detail in the estimates. However, I note that many analysts of oil prices are saying there is a risk premium in the oil price at the moment that is based not on the balance between supply and demand but on people’s estimate of political and social conditions in various oil-producing countries. If that risk premium went out of the oil price, we might get back to a much lower oil price. I will not base the books on false optimism. I will do nothing other than rely on the professional advice of the Department of Treasury and Finance when it comes to these matters.
(1)-(2) Let me get this right! We cook the books to make our finances look worse than they are! That seems to be the proposition the opposition is putting! It is a dreadful conspiracy! Labor and the Treasury have got together to make the books look worse! Dear me! As I said in answer to a previous question, at one level it is laughable; at another level it is deeply offensive. We have always relied on the professional advice of our Department of Treasury and Finance officers when we make these revenue projections. We do not get in there, as apparently the member opposite would, and fiddle the books and tweak the estimates and the projections to get the result that we want. We let Treasury make a professional analysis of these matters, and we take its advice. I do not mind if Treasury’s advice is conservative. One would expect a Department of Treasury and Finance worthy of that name to be conservative in its estimates. Imagine the circumstance if a Treasury was imprudent and over-optimistic in its assessment of revenues and a government made financial commitments on that basis. We can pursue this matter in more detail in the estimates. However, I note that many analysts of oil prices are saying there is a risk premium in the oil price at the moment that is based not on the balance between supply and demand but on people’s estimate of political and social conditions in various oil-producing countries. If that risk premium went out of the oil price, we might get back to a much lower oil price. I will not base the books on false optimism. I will do nothing other than rely on the professional advice of the Department of Treasury and Finance when it comes to these matters.
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.