❓ A parliamentary question probes the WA Treasurer about budget surpluses, expenditure cuts, and a government functional review. The Treasurer defends the review as a measure for sustainable finances and responsible fiscal management, criticising the opposition's inconsistent financial demands.
AnsweredQoN 197Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Treasurer’s media statement yesterday boasting a $209 million budget surplus. (1) Will the Treasurer confirm that there is a committee called the functional review of government currently operating? (2) Are all agencies except health, education and police being targeted for expenditure cuts of approximately $50 million in the next four years? (3) Will the minister inform the House who is chairing the committee? (4) Are there terms of reference; and, if so, will the minister table them? (5) Has the Community and Public Sector Union been asked for advice on the impact of the review; and, if so, will the minister table that advice? (6) If no to (5), why not? (7) If there is a true budget surplus, will the minister explain why the Government has instructed the committee to slash a further $50 million from already starved agency budgets? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
(1) Will the Treasurer confirm that there is a committee called the functional review of government currently operating? (2) Are all agencies except health, education and police being targeted for expenditure cuts of approximately $50 million in the next four years? (3) Will the minister inform the House who is chairing the committee? (4) Are there terms of reference; and, if so, will the minister table them? (5) Has the Community and Public Sector Union been asked for advice on the impact of the review; and, if so, will the minister table that advice? (6) If no to (5), why not? (7) If there is a true budget surplus, will the minister explain why the Government has instructed the committee to slash a further $50 million from already starved agency budgets? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
(2) Are all agencies except health, education and police being targeted for expenditure cuts of approximately $50 million in the next four years? (3) Will the minister inform the House who is chairing the committee? (4) Are there terms of reference; and, if so, will the minister table them? (5) Has the Community and Public Sector Union been asked for advice on the impact of the review; and, if so, will the minister table that advice? (6) If no to (5), why not? (7) If there is a true budget surplus, will the minister explain why the Government has instructed the committee to slash a further $50 million from already starved agency budgets? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
(3) Will the minister inform the House who is chairing the committee? (4) Are there terms of reference; and, if so, will the minister table them? (5) Has the Community and Public Sector Union been asked for advice on the impact of the review; and, if so, will the minister table that advice? (6) If no to (5), why not? (7) If there is a true budget surplus, will the minister explain why the Government has instructed the committee to slash a further $50 million from already starved agency budgets? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
(4) Are there terms of reference; and, if so, will the minister table them? (5) Has the Community and Public Sector Union been asked for advice on the impact of the review; and, if so, will the minister table that advice? (6) If no to (5), why not? (7) If there is a true budget surplus, will the minister explain why the Government has instructed the committee to slash a further $50 million from already starved agency budgets? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
(5) Has the Community and Public Sector Union been asked for advice on the impact of the review; and, if so, will the minister table that advice? (6) If no to (5), why not? (7) If there is a true budget surplus, will the minister explain why the Government has instructed the committee to slash a further $50 million from already starved agency budgets? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
(6) If no to (5), why not? (7) If there is a true budget surplus, will the minister explain why the Government has instructed the committee to slash a further $50 million from already starved agency budgets? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
(7) If there is a true budget surplus, will the minister explain why the Government has instructed the committee to slash a further $50 million from already starved agency budgets? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
(1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government.
(1) Will the Treasurer confirm that there is a committee called the functional review of government currently operating? (2) Are all agencies except health, education and police being targeted for expenditure cuts of approximately $50 million in the next four years? (3) Will the minister inform the House who is chairing the committee? (4) Are there terms of reference; and, if so, will the minister table them? (5) Has the Community and Public Sector Union been asked for advice on the impact of the review; and, if so, will the minister table that advice? (6) If no to (5), why not? (7) If there is a true budget surplus, will the minister explain why the Government has instructed the committee to slash a further $50 million from already starved agency budgets? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
(2) Are all agencies except health, education and police being targeted for expenditure cuts of approximately $50 million in the next four years? (3) Will the minister inform the House who is chairing the committee? (4) Are there terms of reference; and, if so, will the minister table them? (5) Has the Community and Public Sector Union been asked for advice on the impact of the review; and, if so, will the minister table that advice? (6) If no to (5), why not? (7) If there is a true budget surplus, will the minister explain why the Government has instructed the committee to slash a further $50 million from already starved agency budgets? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
(3) Will the minister inform the House who is chairing the committee? (4) Are there terms of reference; and, if so, will the minister table them? (5) Has the Community and Public Sector Union been asked for advice on the impact of the review; and, if so, will the minister table that advice? (6) If no to (5), why not? (7) If there is a true budget surplus, will the minister explain why the Government has instructed the committee to slash a further $50 million from already starved agency budgets? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
(4) Are there terms of reference; and, if so, will the minister table them? (5) Has the Community and Public Sector Union been asked for advice on the impact of the review; and, if so, will the minister table that advice? (6) If no to (5), why not? (7) If there is a true budget surplus, will the minister explain why the Government has instructed the committee to slash a further $50 million from already starved agency budgets? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
(5) Has the Community and Public Sector Union been asked for advice on the impact of the review; and, if so, will the minister table that advice? (6) If no to (5), why not? (7) If there is a true budget surplus, will the minister explain why the Government has instructed the committee to slash a further $50 million from already starved agency budgets? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
(6) If no to (5), why not? (7) If there is a true budget surplus, will the minister explain why the Government has instructed the committee to slash a further $50 million from already starved agency budgets? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
(7) If there is a true budget surplus, will the minister explain why the Government has instructed the committee to slash a further $50 million from already starved agency budgets? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
(1)-(7) I want to get across to the Opposition the concept of sustainable finances. The fact that we had a good outcome last year does not necessarily mean that we will have good outcomes year in, year out unless we take management actions along the way. Members misunderstand what has happened. We had an outcome in the past financial year that was achieved because the Government controlled its expenses. We had some additions in revenue, but we did not splurge them as the previous Government did. We controlled our expenses and we want to do that in future too. We also know that there are potential risks outside the Government’s control that can affect the budget’s bottom line. There will also be a problem in the future with demands from all sorts of lobby groups and interest groups looking for additional expenditure in different areas. Where will that expenditure come from? How will we deal with the “Max factor”, for example, when the Leader of the National Party wants additional expenditure in regional areas, or the sorts of propositions put forward by the shadow Minister for Health? The Government must look closely at government expenditure to make sure that it is getting the most effective use of taxpayers’ money. A review titled “Review of the Effective Delivery of Government Priorities” was announced on budget day and was launched publicly by the Premier on 26 June. All areas of agencies and functions of government will be examined by that review to determine whether they continue to be in accordance with government priorities and whether they can be delivered more effectively in the future. The review is chaired by Mr Michael Costello, a former Secretary of the commonwealth departments of foreign affairs, trade and industrial relations. He is supported by Mr Alan Skinner, the former Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Land Administration; Mr Mal Wauchope, the Director General of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet; and Mr John Langoulant, the Under Treasurer. The review’s terms of reference are on the web site of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the address of which is www.dpc.wa.gov.au/review/index/htm. The member can get that information if he has recorded that address. I have with me the terms of reference, which I will table. The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government. [See paper No 282.]
The review met with the Community and Public Sector Union-Civil Service Association - CPSU-CSA - on 3 September. The member has asked me to table the advice of the union. I believe the union’s approval would need to be sought before I table its documents. The member might like to approach the union if he wants its point of view. The terms of reference contain no instruction to slash $50 million. However, we want to find at least $50 million in savings. We want to prepare the budget for the future because we are well aware that although we have had a good year, all sorts of risks outside the control of government can impact on the Government’s finances. There are all sorts of community demands on health, education and law and order that the Government wants to be in a position to meet while maintaining the tax competitiveness of this State, which is a responsible course of action for us to undertake. I would be very pleased for the Opposition to make submissions if it has suggestions for controlling expenses. However, all we hear from the Opposition are contradictory demands: it wants the Government to reduce taxes, reduce debt, increase spending and certainly does not want us to run a deficit. As I said yesterday, the Opposition must get a coherent and consistent line particularly on these financial issues. It does not have a coherent and consistent line at the moment. When it suits the Opposition, it wants more capital works and the next day it wants lower debt, more spending, no taxes and does not want us to run at a deficit. It must work out a financial strategy to put to the community. It cannot come into the House and put contradictory arguments to the Government.
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.