❓ The WA Treasurer responds to a question about the inclusion of state royalties in the GST review, criticising the federal government's approach and perceived attempts to penalise states for royalty increases following the MRRT agreement.
AnsweredQoN 821Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
STATE ROYALTIES — goods and services tax REVIEW
Last night the federal Labor government’s mineral resources rent tax passed the federal House of Representatives with the support of the Greens, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor. Can the Treasurer please inform this house how the agreement to include state royalties in the goods and services tax review terms of reference will affect Western Australia? Mr C.C. PORTER
Last night the federal Labor government’s mineral resources rent tax passed the federal House of Representatives with the support of the Greens, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor. Can the Treasurer please inform this house how the agreement to include state royalties in the goods and services tax review terms of reference will affect Western Australia? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. He obviously has a deep interest in and extensive knowledge of the mining industry in his electorate. I also want to quote from a letter I received from the federal Treasurer on this issue, which letter I found, frankly, astonishing. Before doing that, I will run through some of the background to this. It is well known to most people in this house that in the lead-up to the last federal election, a meeting was held, the terms of which are secret to a large extent. But in that meeting we know that certain promises were made by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer to the three largest mining companies in Australia. Those promises were made to secure their support to withdraw a campaign that was damaging federal Labor in the lead-up to the last election. Leaving aside the bizarre process of designing a tax with the three largest taxpayers, the fundamental promise was that any future tax—the MRRT was passed last night—would see a rebate of any increases in future state royalties. That must have been a promise made out of sheer desperation, for this reason: states have a constitutional basis for their right to levy royalties, to increase royalties or to decrease royalties, as the case may require. Mr E.S. Ripper : I think everyone in the house would agree with that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I think so too, but that must show that that promise was made out of desperation. Last night in this house we were debating a bill that will see about $2 billion worth of mining royalties come into this state. In due course, about 65 per cent of that will be shared out to other states and territories through the GST mechanism. Mr E.S. Ripper : Because of the deal that Richard Court signed up with Peter Costello, with the Premier’s support. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. He obviously has a deep interest in and extensive knowledge of the mining industry in his electorate. I also want to quote from a letter I received from the federal Treasurer on this issue, which letter I found, frankly, astonishing. Before doing that, I will run through some of the background to this. It is well known to most people in this house that in the lead-up to the last federal election, a meeting was held, the terms of which are secret to a large extent. But in that meeting we know that certain promises were made by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer to the three largest mining companies in Australia. Those promises were made to secure their support to withdraw a campaign that was damaging federal Labor in the lead-up to the last election. Leaving aside the bizarre process of designing a tax with the three largest taxpayers, the fundamental promise was that any future tax—the MRRT was passed last night—would see a rebate of any increases in future state royalties. That must have been a promise made out of sheer desperation, for this reason: states have a constitutional basis for their right to levy royalties, to increase royalties or to decrease royalties, as the case may require. Mr E.S. Ripper : I think everyone in the house would agree with that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I think so too, but that must show that that promise was made out of desperation. Last night in this house we were debating a bill that will see about $2 billion worth of mining royalties come into this state. In due course, about 65 per cent of that will be shared out to other states and territories through the GST mechanism. Mr E.S. Ripper : Because of the deal that Richard Court signed up with Peter Costello, with the Premier’s support. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
I thank the member for his question. He obviously has a deep interest in and extensive knowledge of the mining industry in his electorate. I also want to quote from a letter I received from the federal Treasurer on this issue, which letter I found, frankly, astonishing. Before doing that, I will run through some of the background to this. It is well known to most people in this house that in the lead-up to the last federal election, a meeting was held, the terms of which are secret to a large extent. But in that meeting we know that certain promises were made by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer to the three largest mining companies in Australia. Those promises were made to secure their support to withdraw a campaign that was damaging federal Labor in the lead-up to the last election. Leaving aside the bizarre process of designing a tax with the three largest taxpayers, the fundamental promise was that any future tax—the MRRT was passed last night—would see a rebate of any increases in future state royalties. That must have been a promise made out of sheer desperation, for this reason: states have a constitutional basis for their right to levy royalties, to increase royalties or to decrease royalties, as the case may require. Mr E.S. Ripper : I think everyone in the house would agree with that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I think so too, but that must show that that promise was made out of desperation. Last night in this house we were debating a bill that will see about $2 billion worth of mining royalties come into this state. In due course, about 65 per cent of that will be shared out to other states and territories through the GST mechanism. Mr E.S. Ripper : Because of the deal that Richard Court signed up with Peter Costello, with the Premier’s support. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
I also want to quote from a letter I received from the federal Treasurer on this issue, which letter I found, frankly, astonishing. Before doing that, I will run through some of the background to this. It is well known to most people in this house that in the lead-up to the last federal election, a meeting was held, the terms of which are secret to a large extent. But in that meeting we know that certain promises were made by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer to the three largest mining companies in Australia. Those promises were made to secure their support to withdraw a campaign that was damaging federal Labor in the lead-up to the last election. Leaving aside the bizarre process of designing a tax with the three largest taxpayers, the fundamental promise was that any future tax—the MRRT was passed last night—would see a rebate of any increases in future state royalties. That must have been a promise made out of sheer desperation, for this reason: states have a constitutional basis for their right to levy royalties, to increase royalties or to decrease royalties, as the case may require. Mr E.S. Ripper : I think everyone in the house would agree with that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I think so too, but that must show that that promise was made out of desperation. Last night in this house we were debating a bill that will see about $2 billion worth of mining royalties come into this state. In due course, about 65 per cent of that will be shared out to other states and territories through the GST mechanism. Mr E.S. Ripper : Because of the deal that Richard Court signed up with Peter Costello, with the Premier’s support. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Leaving aside the bizarre process of designing a tax with the three largest taxpayers, the fundamental promise was that any future tax—the MRRT was passed last night—would see a rebate of any increases in future state royalties. That must have been a promise made out of sheer desperation, for this reason: states have a constitutional basis for their right to levy royalties, to increase royalties or to decrease royalties, as the case may require. Mr E.S. Ripper : I think everyone in the house would agree with that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I think so too, but that must show that that promise was made out of desperation. Last night in this house we were debating a bill that will see about $2 billion worth of mining royalties come into this state. In due course, about 65 per cent of that will be shared out to other states and territories through the GST mechanism. Mr E.S. Ripper : Because of the deal that Richard Court signed up with Peter Costello, with the Premier’s support. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr E.S. Ripper : I think everyone in the house would agree with that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I think so too, but that must show that that promise was made out of desperation. Last night in this house we were debating a bill that will see about $2 billion worth of mining royalties come into this state. In due course, about 65 per cent of that will be shared out to other states and territories through the GST mechanism. Mr E.S. Ripper : Because of the deal that Richard Court signed up with Peter Costello, with the Premier’s support. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I think so too, but that must show that that promise was made out of desperation. Last night in this house we were debating a bill that will see about $2 billion worth of mining royalties come into this state. In due course, about 65 per cent of that will be shared out to other states and territories through the GST mechanism. Mr E.S. Ripper : Because of the deal that Richard Court signed up with Peter Costello, with the Premier’s support. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Because of the deal that Richard Court signed up with Peter Costello, with the Premier’s support. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. He obviously has a deep interest in and extensive knowledge of the mining industry in his electorate. I also want to quote from a letter I received from the federal Treasurer on this issue, which letter I found, frankly, astonishing. Before doing that, I will run through some of the background to this. It is well known to most people in this house that in the lead-up to the last federal election, a meeting was held, the terms of which are secret to a large extent. But in that meeting we know that certain promises were made by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer to the three largest mining companies in Australia. Those promises were made to secure their support to withdraw a campaign that was damaging federal Labor in the lead-up to the last election. Leaving aside the bizarre process of designing a tax with the three largest taxpayers, the fundamental promise was that any future tax—the MRRT was passed last night—would see a rebate of any increases in future state royalties. That must have been a promise made out of sheer desperation, for this reason: states have a constitutional basis for their right to levy royalties, to increase royalties or to decrease royalties, as the case may require. Mr E.S. Ripper : I think everyone in the house would agree with that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I think so too, but that must show that that promise was made out of desperation. Last night in this house we were debating a bill that will see about $2 billion worth of mining royalties come into this state. In due course, about 65 per cent of that will be shared out to other states and territories through the GST mechanism. Mr E.S. Ripper : Because of the deal that Richard Court signed up with Peter Costello, with the Premier’s support. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
I thank the member for his question. He obviously has a deep interest in and extensive knowledge of the mining industry in his electorate. I also want to quote from a letter I received from the federal Treasurer on this issue, which letter I found, frankly, astonishing. Before doing that, I will run through some of the background to this. It is well known to most people in this house that in the lead-up to the last federal election, a meeting was held, the terms of which are secret to a large extent. But in that meeting we know that certain promises were made by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer to the three largest mining companies in Australia. Those promises were made to secure their support to withdraw a campaign that was damaging federal Labor in the lead-up to the last election. Leaving aside the bizarre process of designing a tax with the three largest taxpayers, the fundamental promise was that any future tax—the MRRT was passed last night—would see a rebate of any increases in future state royalties. That must have been a promise made out of sheer desperation, for this reason: states have a constitutional basis for their right to levy royalties, to increase royalties or to decrease royalties, as the case may require. Mr E.S. Ripper : I think everyone in the house would agree with that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I think so too, but that must show that that promise was made out of desperation. Last night in this house we were debating a bill that will see about $2 billion worth of mining royalties come into this state. In due course, about 65 per cent of that will be shared out to other states and territories through the GST mechanism. Mr E.S. Ripper : Because of the deal that Richard Court signed up with Peter Costello, with the Premier’s support. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
I also want to quote from a letter I received from the federal Treasurer on this issue, which letter I found, frankly, astonishing. Before doing that, I will run through some of the background to this. It is well known to most people in this house that in the lead-up to the last federal election, a meeting was held, the terms of which are secret to a large extent. But in that meeting we know that certain promises were made by the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer to the three largest mining companies in Australia. Those promises were made to secure their support to withdraw a campaign that was damaging federal Labor in the lead-up to the last election. Leaving aside the bizarre process of designing a tax with the three largest taxpayers, the fundamental promise was that any future tax—the MRRT was passed last night—would see a rebate of any increases in future state royalties. That must have been a promise made out of sheer desperation, for this reason: states have a constitutional basis for their right to levy royalties, to increase royalties or to decrease royalties, as the case may require. Mr E.S. Ripper : I think everyone in the house would agree with that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I think so too, but that must show that that promise was made out of desperation. Last night in this house we were debating a bill that will see about $2 billion worth of mining royalties come into this state. In due course, about 65 per cent of that will be shared out to other states and territories through the GST mechanism. Mr E.S. Ripper : Because of the deal that Richard Court signed up with Peter Costello, with the Premier’s support. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Leaving aside the bizarre process of designing a tax with the three largest taxpayers, the fundamental promise was that any future tax—the MRRT was passed last night—would see a rebate of any increases in future state royalties. That must have been a promise made out of sheer desperation, for this reason: states have a constitutional basis for their right to levy royalties, to increase royalties or to decrease royalties, as the case may require. Mr E.S. Ripper : I think everyone in the house would agree with that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I think so too, but that must show that that promise was made out of desperation. Last night in this house we were debating a bill that will see about $2 billion worth of mining royalties come into this state. In due course, about 65 per cent of that will be shared out to other states and territories through the GST mechanism. Mr E.S. Ripper : Because of the deal that Richard Court signed up with Peter Costello, with the Premier’s support. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr E.S. Ripper : I think everyone in the house would agree with that. Mr C.C. PORTER : I think so too, but that must show that that promise was made out of desperation. Last night in this house we were debating a bill that will see about $2 billion worth of mining royalties come into this state. In due course, about 65 per cent of that will be shared out to other states and territories through the GST mechanism. Mr E.S. Ripper : Because of the deal that Richard Court signed up with Peter Costello, with the Premier’s support. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I think so too, but that must show that that promise was made out of desperation. Last night in this house we were debating a bill that will see about $2 billion worth of mining royalties come into this state. In due course, about 65 per cent of that will be shared out to other states and territories through the GST mechanism. Mr E.S. Ripper : Because of the deal that Richard Court signed up with Peter Costello, with the Premier’s support. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Because of the deal that Richard Court signed up with Peter Costello, with the Premier’s support. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I cannot find an example previously in which a federal government has ever complained about a royalty increase, let alone one that gets shared with the other states and territories to the tune of 65 per cent. Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr E.S. Ripper : We have an example of a state complaining about a federal tax increase. Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.C. PORTER : We have a situation now in which the Prime Minister and the federal Treasurer characterise royalties as inefficient, but they are not inefficient; they are just inconvenient at the moment to the federal government because the federal government promised to rebate them. In fact, I think the Prime Minister said recently that royalties do not support growth in the sector, meaning the mining sector. Since 1981 or thereabouts, since we have had the present royalties system here in WA, the value of the sector has increased from just under $200 million to $69 billion in 2010. That is not a bad effort for a system the Prime Minister says does not support growth. In any event, the Premier quoted from a letter from the Prime Minister to Oakeshott, which was the latest desperate promise to get the MRRT through and which worked. In that letter the Prime Minister said that she had directed the GST review committee to “look at a mechanism to penalise and discourage those states which undertake any further royalty increases”. Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.J. Barnett : Do you support that? Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr E.S. Ripper : I do not support any interference with Western Australia’s right to raise royalties. I absolutely oppose that. Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.J. Barnett : You support the MRRT; you said it yesterday. Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr E.S. Ripper : I support the MRRT, but I do not support any interference in Western Australia’s right to raise its royalties. Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Mr Speaker, that letter was sent by the Prime Minister. She told Mr Oakeshott that she had instructed the GST review committee to find a mechanism to penalise the states. On the same day, I got a letter from the federal Treasurer, and the one thing that it did not say was that he had instructed the GST review panel to find a method to penalise the states. According to my notes, the federal Treasurer’s letter to me said — I have written to the review panel formally expanding the reviews terms of reference to include a full examination of this issue … The issue being — … options relating to the interaction between horizontal fiscal equalisation and state tax reform. At least with Mr Oakeshott’s letter being leaked, we know what that is code for. It is code for an instruction that the Prime Minister has given this panel to look at a way to penalise the state. Again, according to my notes, the panel’s changed terms of reference are now to — … examine … incentives for states to reduce MRRT revenue through increasing State mineral royalties”. That in itself is innocuous. But then we look at the sting in the tail. Next to that changed term of reference, it says that the committee “will be guided by the following”, notably that — … the MRRT provides a more efficient approach to charging for Australia’s non-renewable resources than the mineral royalties. Therefore, the independent GST review set up to help this state and produce a fairer system can make any conclusion that it wants so long as the conclusion is that the MRRT is awesome, royalties are rubbish and the states need to be penalised. What an unbelievably outrageous — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.C. PORTER : How could members opposite maintain their membership of the ALP when their Labor Prime Minister instructs a nominally independent review panel to find a way to punish the states for doing something they are constitutionally entitled to do? To his credit—I will say this—Mr Greiner came out yesterday and said — “I am not interested in some pre-concluded judgement that assumes the states are … wrong,” Mr E.S. Ripper interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I am sure he is too. He said — “I am 100 per cent not interested in validating some political position. The Prime Minister is establishing an independent review committee, in her words “to find a fairer simpler system for WA”, and is then telling Oakeshott that she has now instructed that independent review panel to find a way to penalise the state. You can tell the animals that they can determine how to run the farm any way they like, so long as they do so on the guiding principle of “four legs, good; two legs, bad”. I think that is one of the most outrageous things that could possibly be done, and it is being done by the leader of the party of which those opposite are all members. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
The SPEAKER : Some of you are not recovering, obviously. Premier, I call you to order for the first time. I give the call to the member for Victoria Park. A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
A government member: Welcome back! Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
Mr B.S. Wyatt : It is a pleasure to be back! The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members.
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.