❓ Treasurer Ripper attributes the state's budgetary weakness to the previous government's fiscal indiscipline, citing a memo from the Under Treasurer detailing overspending and lack of financial control.
AnsweredQoN 238Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
BUDGET, STRUCTURAL WEAKNESS
I refer to the Treasurer’s comments yesterday about the underlying structural weakness of the state budgetary position and ask: What are the main causes? Mr RIPPER
I refer to the Treasurer’s comments yesterday about the underlying structural weakness of the state budgetary position and ask: What are the main causes? Mr RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. The main causes of underlying structural weakness in the State’s budget are the members on the other side of the House. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues still take no responsibility for the budgetary problems that this Government has inherited. I am wounded by the suggestion that the Barnett budget blow-out is a figment of our political imagination; it is a real problem. However, members do not have to take my word for it, because today I can reveal for the first time what the State’s Under Treasurer told Richard Court in 1998. This is at the same time as members opposite were denying there was a problem with the budget. The Under Treasurer told the previous Treasurer - I have expressed my concern to you on a number of occasions about the disturbing trend of Cabinet and individual Ministers to embark upon expenditure proposals out of context with the budget. This trend manifests itself in the following ways: Individual Ministers and Cabinet Sub-Committees proposing and endorsing proposals which are not consistent with agreed and promulgated government policy . . . Individual Ministers proposing, and Cabinet endorsing, expenditure proposals with no regard to the state of the overall budget and with no examination or consideration of existing budgetary capacity within a portfolio. Who do members think was the most serious offender? To whom do members think the Under Treasurer drew attention? It was the Leader of the Opposition. I will quote the chief example given by the Under Treasurer. He stated - Examples include the . . . Education Minister’s announcements on matters such as reduced class sizes which are not funded. The Under Treasurer went on to say - Individual Ministers attempting to capture the budget process by seeking in-principle approval for significant expenditure programs before the annual budget process begins and often before the current budget has passed through the Parliament. These are not my words, but the words of the Under Treasurer in a protest to the then Treasurer in 1998. It is interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition protest, because the example the Under Treasurer gave on that second point was the Leader of the Opposition. The Under Treasurer refers again to the former Minister for Education and former Minister for Energy. He said - A classic example is the current proposal by the Minister for Education to expand the Local Area Education Planning initiative, the same Minister’s proposal on regional power . . . This memo contains more. It goes on - Ministers, aided and abetted by their CEOs, to defy government policy on financial management. It is as I said in a debate in this place some weeks ago: senior ministers on the other side were disloyal to their Treasurer. As the Under Treasurer stated - . . . the end result and the current quite critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by Ministers in general and Cabinet in particular . . . He said - Given that the trend of decision making is following the now well established path of earlier years, unless strong and immediate corrective action is taken, the outcome for 1998/99 is likely to be some 3% or $200 million in excess of budget for recurrent expenditure. He also referred to the former Government’s financial management, and said - To date, these excesses of expenditure have been offset by one-off revenue windfalls. He then went on with his warning to the former Government. He said - In summary, the budgetary forecasts since and inclusive of 1994/95 have not been adhered to. The end result is a budget which is now displaying significant structural weakness. If this structural weakness is not dealt with, the Government will be unable to deliver on its publicly announced fiscal targets and regardless of these targets, will be required to further increase taxation or resort to borrowings or both within the next two years. I know this is a long answer; however, it is important to pinpoint the responsibility for the structural weaknesses in this State’s budget. The Leader of the Opposition is saying things like this - . . . It’s quite obvious the financial position of Western Australia has deteriorated and is deteriorating very, very quickly, but they had a clean set of accounts and a clean surplus when they came into power. What a joke! The Under Treasurer’s memo gives the lie to the claims of the Leader of the Opposition. It is clear that the main structural weakness in the State’s budget is sitting in the seat opposite. I table the letter from the Under Treasurer. [See paper No 462.]
Mr RIPPER replied: I thank the member for his question. The main causes of underlying structural weakness in the State’s budget are the members on the other side of the House. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues still take no responsibility for the budgetary problems that this Government has inherited. I am wounded by the suggestion that the Barnett budget blow-out is a figment of our political imagination; it is a real problem. However, members do not have to take my word for it, because today I can reveal for the first time what the State’s Under Treasurer told Richard Court in 1998. This is at the same time as members opposite were denying there was a problem with the budget. The Under Treasurer told the previous Treasurer - I have expressed my concern to you on a number of occasions about the disturbing trend of Cabinet and individual Ministers to embark upon expenditure proposals out of context with the budget. This trend manifests itself in the following ways: Individual Ministers and Cabinet Sub-Committees proposing and endorsing proposals which are not consistent with agreed and promulgated government policy . . . Individual Ministers proposing, and Cabinet endorsing, expenditure proposals with no regard to the state of the overall budget and with no examination or consideration of existing budgetary capacity within a portfolio. Who do members think was the most serious offender? To whom do members think the Under Treasurer drew attention? It was the Leader of the Opposition. I will quote the chief example given by the Under Treasurer. He stated - Examples include the . . . Education Minister’s announcements on matters such as reduced class sizes which are not funded. The Under Treasurer went on to say - Individual Ministers attempting to capture the budget process by seeking in-principle approval for significant expenditure programs before the annual budget process begins and often before the current budget has passed through the Parliament. These are not my words, but the words of the Under Treasurer in a protest to the then Treasurer in 1998. It is interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition protest, because the example the Under Treasurer gave on that second point was the Leader of the Opposition. The Under Treasurer refers again to the former Minister for Education and former Minister for Energy. He said - A classic example is the current proposal by the Minister for Education to expand the Local Area Education Planning initiative, the same Minister’s proposal on regional power . . . This memo contains more. It goes on - Ministers, aided and abetted by their CEOs, to defy government policy on financial management. It is as I said in a debate in this place some weeks ago: senior ministers on the other side were disloyal to their Treasurer. As the Under Treasurer stated - . . . the end result and the current quite critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by Ministers in general and Cabinet in particular . . . He said - Given that the trend of decision making is following the now well established path of earlier years, unless strong and immediate corrective action is taken, the outcome for 1998/99 is likely to be some 3% or $200 million in excess of budget for recurrent expenditure. He also referred to the former Government’s financial management, and said - To date, these excesses of expenditure have been offset by one-off revenue windfalls. He then went on with his warning to the former Government. He said - In summary, the budgetary forecasts since and inclusive of 1994/95 have not been adhered to. The end result is a budget which is now displaying significant structural weakness. If this structural weakness is not dealt with, the Government will be unable to deliver on its publicly announced fiscal targets and regardless of these targets, will be required to further increase taxation or resort to borrowings or both within the next two years. I know this is a long answer; however, it is important to pinpoint the responsibility for the structural weaknesses in this State’s budget. The Leader of the Opposition is saying things like this - . . . It’s quite obvious the financial position of Western Australia has deteriorated and is deteriorating very, very quickly, but they had a clean set of accounts and a clean surplus when they came into power. What a joke! The Under Treasurer’s memo gives the lie to the claims of the Leader of the Opposition. It is clear that the main structural weakness in the State’s budget is sitting in the seat opposite. I table the letter from the Under Treasurer. [See paper No 462.]
I thank the member for his question. The main causes of underlying structural weakness in the State’s budget are the members on the other side of the House. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues still take no responsibility for the budgetary problems that this Government has inherited. I am wounded by the suggestion that the Barnett budget blow-out is a figment of our political imagination; it is a real problem. However, members do not have to take my word for it, because today I can reveal for the first time what the State’s Under Treasurer told Richard Court in 1998. This is at the same time as members opposite were denying there was a problem with the budget. The Under Treasurer told the previous Treasurer - I have expressed my concern to you on a number of occasions about the disturbing trend of Cabinet and individual Ministers to embark upon expenditure proposals out of context with the budget. This trend manifests itself in the following ways: Individual Ministers and Cabinet Sub-Committees proposing and endorsing proposals which are not consistent with agreed and promulgated government policy . . . Individual Ministers proposing, and Cabinet endorsing, expenditure proposals with no regard to the state of the overall budget and with no examination or consideration of existing budgetary capacity within a portfolio. Who do members think was the most serious offender? To whom do members think the Under Treasurer drew attention? It was the Leader of the Opposition. I will quote the chief example given by the Under Treasurer. He stated - Examples include the . . . Education Minister’s announcements on matters such as reduced class sizes which are not funded. The Under Treasurer went on to say - Individual Ministers attempting to capture the budget process by seeking in-principle approval for significant expenditure programs before the annual budget process begins and often before the current budget has passed through the Parliament. These are not my words, but the words of the Under Treasurer in a protest to the then Treasurer in 1998. It is interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition protest, because the example the Under Treasurer gave on that second point was the Leader of the Opposition. The Under Treasurer refers again to the former Minister for Education and former Minister for Energy. He said - A classic example is the current proposal by the Minister for Education to expand the Local Area Education Planning initiative, the same Minister’s proposal on regional power . . . This memo contains more. It goes on - Ministers, aided and abetted by their CEOs, to defy government policy on financial management. It is as I said in a debate in this place some weeks ago: senior ministers on the other side were disloyal to their Treasurer. As the Under Treasurer stated - . . . the end result and the current quite critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by Ministers in general and Cabinet in particular . . . He said - Given that the trend of decision making is following the now well established path of earlier years, unless strong and immediate corrective action is taken, the outcome for 1998/99 is likely to be some 3% or $200 million in excess of budget for recurrent expenditure. He also referred to the former Government’s financial management, and said - To date, these excesses of expenditure have been offset by one-off revenue windfalls. He then went on with his warning to the former Government. He said - In summary, the budgetary forecasts since and inclusive of 1994/95 have not been adhered to. The end result is a budget which is now displaying significant structural weakness. If this structural weakness is not dealt with, the Government will be unable to deliver on its publicly announced fiscal targets and regardless of these targets, will be required to further increase taxation or resort to borrowings or both within the next two years. I know this is a long answer; however, it is important to pinpoint the responsibility for the structural weaknesses in this State’s budget. The Leader of the Opposition is saying things like this - . . . It’s quite obvious the financial position of Western Australia has deteriorated and is deteriorating very, very quickly, but they had a clean set of accounts and a clean surplus when they came into power. What a joke! The Under Treasurer’s memo gives the lie to the claims of the Leader of the Opposition. It is clear that the main structural weakness in the State’s budget is sitting in the seat opposite. I table the letter from the Under Treasurer. [See paper No 462.]
Individual Ministers proposing, and Cabinet endorsing, expenditure proposals with no regard to the state of the overall budget and with no examination or consideration of existing budgetary capacity within a portfolio.
It is clear that the main structural weakness in the State’s budget is sitting in the seat opposite. I table the letter from the Under Treasurer. [See paper No 462.]
[See paper No 462.]
Mr RIPPER replied: I thank the member for his question. The main causes of underlying structural weakness in the State’s budget are the members on the other side of the House. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues still take no responsibility for the budgetary problems that this Government has inherited. I am wounded by the suggestion that the Barnett budget blow-out is a figment of our political imagination; it is a real problem. However, members do not have to take my word for it, because today I can reveal for the first time what the State’s Under Treasurer told Richard Court in 1998. This is at the same time as members opposite were denying there was a problem with the budget. The Under Treasurer told the previous Treasurer - I have expressed my concern to you on a number of occasions about the disturbing trend of Cabinet and individual Ministers to embark upon expenditure proposals out of context with the budget. This trend manifests itself in the following ways: Individual Ministers and Cabinet Sub-Committees proposing and endorsing proposals which are not consistent with agreed and promulgated government policy . . . Individual Ministers proposing, and Cabinet endorsing, expenditure proposals with no regard to the state of the overall budget and with no examination or consideration of existing budgetary capacity within a portfolio. Who do members think was the most serious offender? To whom do members think the Under Treasurer drew attention? It was the Leader of the Opposition. I will quote the chief example given by the Under Treasurer. He stated - Examples include the . . . Education Minister’s announcements on matters such as reduced class sizes which are not funded. The Under Treasurer went on to say - Individual Ministers attempting to capture the budget process by seeking in-principle approval for significant expenditure programs before the annual budget process begins and often before the current budget has passed through the Parliament. These are not my words, but the words of the Under Treasurer in a protest to the then Treasurer in 1998. It is interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition protest, because the example the Under Treasurer gave on that second point was the Leader of the Opposition. The Under Treasurer refers again to the former Minister for Education and former Minister for Energy. He said - A classic example is the current proposal by the Minister for Education to expand the Local Area Education Planning initiative, the same Minister’s proposal on regional power . . . This memo contains more. It goes on - Ministers, aided and abetted by their CEOs, to defy government policy on financial management. It is as I said in a debate in this place some weeks ago: senior ministers on the other side were disloyal to their Treasurer. As the Under Treasurer stated - . . . the end result and the current quite critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by Ministers in general and Cabinet in particular . . . He said - Given that the trend of decision making is following the now well established path of earlier years, unless strong and immediate corrective action is taken, the outcome for 1998/99 is likely to be some 3% or $200 million in excess of budget for recurrent expenditure. He also referred to the former Government’s financial management, and said - To date, these excesses of expenditure have been offset by one-off revenue windfalls. He then went on with his warning to the former Government. He said - In summary, the budgetary forecasts since and inclusive of 1994/95 have not been adhered to. The end result is a budget which is now displaying significant structural weakness. If this structural weakness is not dealt with, the Government will be unable to deliver on its publicly announced fiscal targets and regardless of these targets, will be required to further increase taxation or resort to borrowings or both within the next two years. I know this is a long answer; however, it is important to pinpoint the responsibility for the structural weaknesses in this State’s budget. The Leader of the Opposition is saying things like this - . . . It’s quite obvious the financial position of Western Australia has deteriorated and is deteriorating very, very quickly, but they had a clean set of accounts and a clean surplus when they came into power. What a joke! The Under Treasurer’s memo gives the lie to the claims of the Leader of the Opposition. It is clear that the main structural weakness in the State’s budget is sitting in the seat opposite. I table the letter from the Under Treasurer. [See paper No 462.]
I thank the member for his question. The main causes of underlying structural weakness in the State’s budget are the members on the other side of the House. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues still take no responsibility for the budgetary problems that this Government has inherited. I am wounded by the suggestion that the Barnett budget blow-out is a figment of our political imagination; it is a real problem. However, members do not have to take my word for it, because today I can reveal for the first time what the State’s Under Treasurer told Richard Court in 1998. This is at the same time as members opposite were denying there was a problem with the budget. The Under Treasurer told the previous Treasurer - I have expressed my concern to you on a number of occasions about the disturbing trend of Cabinet and individual Ministers to embark upon expenditure proposals out of context with the budget. This trend manifests itself in the following ways: Individual Ministers and Cabinet Sub-Committees proposing and endorsing proposals which are not consistent with agreed and promulgated government policy . . . Individual Ministers proposing, and Cabinet endorsing, expenditure proposals with no regard to the state of the overall budget and with no examination or consideration of existing budgetary capacity within a portfolio. Who do members think was the most serious offender? To whom do members think the Under Treasurer drew attention? It was the Leader of the Opposition. I will quote the chief example given by the Under Treasurer. He stated - Examples include the . . . Education Minister’s announcements on matters such as reduced class sizes which are not funded. The Under Treasurer went on to say - Individual Ministers attempting to capture the budget process by seeking in-principle approval for significant expenditure programs before the annual budget process begins and often before the current budget has passed through the Parliament. These are not my words, but the words of the Under Treasurer in a protest to the then Treasurer in 1998. It is interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition protest, because the example the Under Treasurer gave on that second point was the Leader of the Opposition. The Under Treasurer refers again to the former Minister for Education and former Minister for Energy. He said - A classic example is the current proposal by the Minister for Education to expand the Local Area Education Planning initiative, the same Minister’s proposal on regional power . . . This memo contains more. It goes on - Ministers, aided and abetted by their CEOs, to defy government policy on financial management. It is as I said in a debate in this place some weeks ago: senior ministers on the other side were disloyal to their Treasurer. As the Under Treasurer stated - . . . the end result and the current quite critical situation is entirely attributable to the lack of discipline shown by Ministers in general and Cabinet in particular . . . He said - Given that the trend of decision making is following the now well established path of earlier years, unless strong and immediate corrective action is taken, the outcome for 1998/99 is likely to be some 3% or $200 million in excess of budget for recurrent expenditure. He also referred to the former Government’s financial management, and said - To date, these excesses of expenditure have been offset by one-off revenue windfalls. He then went on with his warning to the former Government. He said - In summary, the budgetary forecasts since and inclusive of 1994/95 have not been adhered to. The end result is a budget which is now displaying significant structural weakness. If this structural weakness is not dealt with, the Government will be unable to deliver on its publicly announced fiscal targets and regardless of these targets, will be required to further increase taxation or resort to borrowings or both within the next two years. I know this is a long answer; however, it is important to pinpoint the responsibility for the structural weaknesses in this State’s budget. The Leader of the Opposition is saying things like this - . . . It’s quite obvious the financial position of Western Australia has deteriorated and is deteriorating very, very quickly, but they had a clean set of accounts and a clean surplus when they came into power. What a joke! The Under Treasurer’s memo gives the lie to the claims of the Leader of the Opposition. It is clear that the main structural weakness in the State’s budget is sitting in the seat opposite. I table the letter from the Under Treasurer. [See paper No 462.]
Individual Ministers proposing, and Cabinet endorsing, expenditure proposals with no regard to the state of the overall budget and with no examination or consideration of existing budgetary capacity within a portfolio.
It is clear that the main structural weakness in the State’s budget is sitting in the seat opposite. I table the letter from the Under Treasurer. [See paper No 462.]
[See paper No 462.]
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.