❓ Mr. Barnett questions the Treasurer about discrepancies in reported health funding figures. The Treasurer explains the difference between budget appropriations and actual expenses, citing supplementary funding and various revenue sources.
AnsweredQoN 485Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Treasurer to the statement in the House yesterday, which was printed in The West Australian today, that the Labor Government increased health funding by 10 per cent to $2.615 billion in 2001-02. (1) How does the Treasurer reconcile this statement in the House with the budget papers, which state that the estimated actual allocation to health in 2001-02 was in fact $2.389 billion? (2) How does the Treasurer also reconcile this statement with the Premier’s media release on 22 December 2001, which states - . . . total health spending for 2001-02 of $2.3billion represented a seven per cent increase on last year. (3) Will the Treasurer undertake to provide a full explanation of this apparent $226 million discrepancy? In other words, which is correct, the budget papers or the statement he made in the House yesterday? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) The statement I made in the House yesterday was based on expenses in the health portfolio for each financial year. Firstly, expenses for the health portfolio in each financial year are based on the out turn for that financial year, not simply the expected out turn at the time of the budget. As members of this House and the public well know, in recent years, under the previous Government and under this Government, supplementary funding arrangements for the health portfolio have consistently been in place. Secondly, the expenses item covers appropriations, run-downs in cash balances, expenditure funded from commonwealth grants and expenditure funded from the revenue from the sale of services. Many factors make up the expenses item. The point of the information that I provided to the House yesterday was to show how expenses in the health portfolio have grown over the years. They have grown at rates ranging from three per cent in one coalition year to 13 per cent in another year. The important point about that rate of growth of expenses is that it appears to average about 7.5 per cent a year. If we project that rate of growth of expenses in the health portfolio - however it is funded - to 2010-11, in fewer than 10 years more than 34 per cent of the state budget will be spent on health. At the moment, about 24.2 per cent of the state budget is spent on health. If the percentage of the budget spent on health were increased by about 10 per cent, it would equate to taking $1 billion out of today’s budget allocation for education, community safety and all the other things that we fund, and shifting it into the health system. Alternatively, it would require raising an additional $1 billion a year in taxation. Under those circumstances, the taxation increases would total more than all the taxation increases that have occurred over the past 10 years in this State. This is a very serious issue. It is a serious financial issue, and it is a serious financial issue for the delivery of services. We want sustainable health services to meet the needs of our community into the future. The only conclusion that can be reached, after considering that a 10 per cent increase in the share of the health budget would require directing funds away from other services or increasing taxation by $1 billion, is that it will not happen. The Government must take into account the sustainability of the services that it must provide to the community. That is why the Government has appointed a health reform team to ensure that, despite those financial issues, services can be delivered in a sustainable way in the future. I have been asked to reconcile the statement I made yesterday with the budget papers and with the Premier’s statement. I have told the Leader of the Opposition how those matters are reconciled. The Leader of the Opposition is talking about budget appropriations and I am talking about expenses and the out turn. If the Leader of the Opposition - Mr C.J. Barnett: Give us a break! Who would fall for that? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: I would be happy to have Treasury brief the Leader of the Opposition on the matter.
(1) How does the Treasurer reconcile this statement in the House with the budget papers, which state that the estimated actual allocation to health in 2001-02 was in fact $2.389 billion? (2) How does the Treasurer also reconcile this statement with the Premier’s media release on 22 December 2001, which states - . . . total health spending for 2001-02 of $2.3billion represented a seven per cent increase on last year. (3) Will the Treasurer undertake to provide a full explanation of this apparent $226 million discrepancy? In other words, which is correct, the budget papers or the statement he made in the House yesterday? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The statement I made in the House yesterday was based on expenses in the health portfolio for each financial year. Firstly, expenses for the health portfolio in each financial year are based on the out turn for that financial year, not simply the expected out turn at the time of the budget. As members of this House and the public well know, in recent years, under the previous Government and under this Government, supplementary funding arrangements for the health portfolio have consistently been in place. Secondly, the expenses item covers appropriations, run-downs in cash balances, expenditure funded from commonwealth grants and expenditure funded from the revenue from the sale of services. Many factors make up the expenses item. The point of the information that I provided to the House yesterday was to show how expenses in the health portfolio have grown over the years. They have grown at rates ranging from three per cent in one coalition year to 13 per cent in another year. The important point about that rate of growth of expenses is that it appears to average about 7.5 per cent a year. If we project that rate of growth of expenses in the health portfolio - however it is funded - to 2010-11, in fewer than 10 years more than 34 per cent of the state budget will be spent on health. At the moment, about 24.2 per cent of the state budget is spent on health. If the percentage of the budget spent on health were increased by about 10 per cent, it would equate to taking $1 billion out of today’s budget allocation for education, community safety and all the other things that we fund, and shifting it into the health system. Alternatively, it would require raising an additional $1 billion a year in taxation. Under those circumstances, the taxation increases would total more than all the taxation increases that have occurred over the past 10 years in this State. This is a very serious issue. It is a serious financial issue, and it is a serious financial issue for the delivery of services. We want sustainable health services to meet the needs of our community into the future. The only conclusion that can be reached, after considering that a 10 per cent increase in the share of the health budget would require directing funds away from other services or increasing taxation by $1 billion, is that it will not happen. The Government must take into account the sustainability of the services that it must provide to the community. That is why the Government has appointed a health reform team to ensure that, despite those financial issues, services can be delivered in a sustainable way in the future. I have been asked to reconcile the statement I made yesterday with the budget papers and with the Premier’s statement. I have told the Leader of the Opposition how those matters are reconciled. The Leader of the Opposition is talking about budget appropriations and I am talking about expenses and the out turn. If the Leader of the Opposition - Mr C.J. Barnett: Give us a break! Who would fall for that? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: I would be happy to have Treasury brief the Leader of the Opposition on the matter.
(2) How does the Treasurer also reconcile this statement with the Premier’s media release on 22 December 2001, which states - . . . total health spending for 2001-02 of $2.3billion represented a seven per cent increase on last year. (3) Will the Treasurer undertake to provide a full explanation of this apparent $226 million discrepancy? In other words, which is correct, the budget papers or the statement he made in the House yesterday? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The statement I made in the House yesterday was based on expenses in the health portfolio for each financial year. Firstly, expenses for the health portfolio in each financial year are based on the out turn for that financial year, not simply the expected out turn at the time of the budget. As members of this House and the public well know, in recent years, under the previous Government and under this Government, supplementary funding arrangements for the health portfolio have consistently been in place. Secondly, the expenses item covers appropriations, run-downs in cash balances, expenditure funded from commonwealth grants and expenditure funded from the revenue from the sale of services. Many factors make up the expenses item. The point of the information that I provided to the House yesterday was to show how expenses in the health portfolio have grown over the years. They have grown at rates ranging from three per cent in one coalition year to 13 per cent in another year. The important point about that rate of growth of expenses is that it appears to average about 7.5 per cent a year. If we project that rate of growth of expenses in the health portfolio - however it is funded - to 2010-11, in fewer than 10 years more than 34 per cent of the state budget will be spent on health. At the moment, about 24.2 per cent of the state budget is spent on health. If the percentage of the budget spent on health were increased by about 10 per cent, it would equate to taking $1 billion out of today’s budget allocation for education, community safety and all the other things that we fund, and shifting it into the health system. Alternatively, it would require raising an additional $1 billion a year in taxation. Under those circumstances, the taxation increases would total more than all the taxation increases that have occurred over the past 10 years in this State. This is a very serious issue. It is a serious financial issue, and it is a serious financial issue for the delivery of services. We want sustainable health services to meet the needs of our community into the future. The only conclusion that can be reached, after considering that a 10 per cent increase in the share of the health budget would require directing funds away from other services or increasing taxation by $1 billion, is that it will not happen. The Government must take into account the sustainability of the services that it must provide to the community. That is why the Government has appointed a health reform team to ensure that, despite those financial issues, services can be delivered in a sustainable way in the future. I have been asked to reconcile the statement I made yesterday with the budget papers and with the Premier’s statement. I have told the Leader of the Opposition how those matters are reconciled. The Leader of the Opposition is talking about budget appropriations and I am talking about expenses and the out turn. If the Leader of the Opposition - Mr C.J. Barnett: Give us a break! Who would fall for that? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: I would be happy to have Treasury brief the Leader of the Opposition on the matter.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The statement I made in the House yesterday was based on expenses in the health portfolio for each financial year. Firstly, expenses for the health portfolio in each financial year are based on the out turn for that financial year, not simply the expected out turn at the time of the budget. As members of this House and the public well know, in recent years, under the previous Government and under this Government, supplementary funding arrangements for the health portfolio have consistently been in place. Secondly, the expenses item covers appropriations, run-downs in cash balances, expenditure funded from commonwealth grants and expenditure funded from the revenue from the sale of services. Many factors make up the expenses item. The point of the information that I provided to the House yesterday was to show how expenses in the health portfolio have grown over the years. They have grown at rates ranging from three per cent in one coalition year to 13 per cent in another year. The important point about that rate of growth of expenses is that it appears to average about 7.5 per cent a year. If we project that rate of growth of expenses in the health portfolio - however it is funded - to 2010-11, in fewer than 10 years more than 34 per cent of the state budget will be spent on health. At the moment, about 24.2 per cent of the state budget is spent on health. If the percentage of the budget spent on health were increased by about 10 per cent, it would equate to taking $1 billion out of today’s budget allocation for education, community safety and all the other things that we fund, and shifting it into the health system. Alternatively, it would require raising an additional $1 billion a year in taxation. Under those circumstances, the taxation increases would total more than all the taxation increases that have occurred over the past 10 years in this State. This is a very serious issue. It is a serious financial issue, and it is a serious financial issue for the delivery of services. We want sustainable health services to meet the needs of our community into the future. The only conclusion that can be reached, after considering that a 10 per cent increase in the share of the health budget would require directing funds away from other services or increasing taxation by $1 billion, is that it will not happen. The Government must take into account the sustainability of the services that it must provide to the community. That is why the Government has appointed a health reform team to ensure that, despite those financial issues, services can be delivered in a sustainable way in the future. I have been asked to reconcile the statement I made yesterday with the budget papers and with the Premier’s statement. I have told the Leader of the Opposition how those matters are reconciled. The Leader of the Opposition is talking about budget appropriations and I am talking about expenses and the out turn. If the Leader of the Opposition - Mr C.J. Barnett: Give us a break! Who would fall for that? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: I would be happy to have Treasury brief the Leader of the Opposition on the matter.
(1)-(3) The statement I made in the House yesterday was based on expenses in the health portfolio for each financial year. Firstly, expenses for the health portfolio in each financial year are based on the out turn for that financial year, not simply the expected out turn at the time of the budget. As members of this House and the public well know, in recent years, under the previous Government and under this Government, supplementary funding arrangements for the health portfolio have consistently been in place. Secondly, the expenses item covers appropriations, run-downs in cash balances, expenditure funded from commonwealth grants and expenditure funded from the revenue from the sale of services. Many factors make up the expenses item. The point of the information that I provided to the House yesterday was to show how expenses in the health portfolio have grown over the years. They have grown at rates ranging from three per cent in one coalition year to 13 per cent in another year. The important point about that rate of growth of expenses is that it appears to average about 7.5 per cent a year. If we project that rate of growth of expenses in the health portfolio - however it is funded - to 2010-11, in fewer than 10 years more than 34 per cent of the state budget will be spent on health. At the moment, about 24.2 per cent of the state budget is spent on health. If the percentage of the budget spent on health were increased by about 10 per cent, it would equate to taking $1 billion out of today’s budget allocation for education, community safety and all the other things that we fund, and shifting it into the health system. Alternatively, it would require raising an additional $1 billion a year in taxation. Under those circumstances, the taxation increases would total more than all the taxation increases that have occurred over the past 10 years in this State. This is a very serious issue. It is a serious financial issue, and it is a serious financial issue for the delivery of services. We want sustainable health services to meet the needs of our community into the future. The only conclusion that can be reached, after considering that a 10 per cent increase in the share of the health budget would require directing funds away from other services or increasing taxation by $1 billion, is that it will not happen. The Government must take into account the sustainability of the services that it must provide to the community. That is why the Government has appointed a health reform team to ensure that, despite those financial issues, services can be delivered in a sustainable way in the future. I have been asked to reconcile the statement I made yesterday with the budget papers and with the Premier’s statement. I have told the Leader of the Opposition how those matters are reconciled. The Leader of the Opposition is talking about budget appropriations and I am talking about expenses and the out turn. If the Leader of the Opposition - Mr C.J. Barnett: Give us a break! Who would fall for that? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: I would be happy to have Treasury brief the Leader of the Opposition on the matter.
I have been asked to reconcile the statement I made yesterday with the budget papers and with the Premier’s statement. I have told the Leader of the Opposition how those matters are reconciled. The Leader of the Opposition is talking about budget appropriations and I am talking about expenses and the out turn. If the Leader of the Opposition -
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: I would be happy to have Treasury brief the Leader of the Opposition on the matter.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: I would be happy to have Treasury brief the Leader of the Opposition on the matter.
(1) How does the Treasurer reconcile this statement in the House with the budget papers, which state that the estimated actual allocation to health in 2001-02 was in fact $2.389 billion? (2) How does the Treasurer also reconcile this statement with the Premier’s media release on 22 December 2001, which states - . . . total health spending for 2001-02 of $2.3billion represented a seven per cent increase on last year. (3) Will the Treasurer undertake to provide a full explanation of this apparent $226 million discrepancy? In other words, which is correct, the budget papers or the statement he made in the House yesterday? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The statement I made in the House yesterday was based on expenses in the health portfolio for each financial year. Firstly, expenses for the health portfolio in each financial year are based on the out turn for that financial year, not simply the expected out turn at the time of the budget. As members of this House and the public well know, in recent years, under the previous Government and under this Government, supplementary funding arrangements for the health portfolio have consistently been in place. Secondly, the expenses item covers appropriations, run-downs in cash balances, expenditure funded from commonwealth grants and expenditure funded from the revenue from the sale of services. Many factors make up the expenses item. The point of the information that I provided to the House yesterday was to show how expenses in the health portfolio have grown over the years. They have grown at rates ranging from three per cent in one coalition year to 13 per cent in another year. The important point about that rate of growth of expenses is that it appears to average about 7.5 per cent a year. If we project that rate of growth of expenses in the health portfolio - however it is funded - to 2010-11, in fewer than 10 years more than 34 per cent of the state budget will be spent on health. At the moment, about 24.2 per cent of the state budget is spent on health. If the percentage of the budget spent on health were increased by about 10 per cent, it would equate to taking $1 billion out of today’s budget allocation for education, community safety and all the other things that we fund, and shifting it into the health system. Alternatively, it would require raising an additional $1 billion a year in taxation. Under those circumstances, the taxation increases would total more than all the taxation increases that have occurred over the past 10 years in this State. This is a very serious issue. It is a serious financial issue, and it is a serious financial issue for the delivery of services. We want sustainable health services to meet the needs of our community into the future. The only conclusion that can be reached, after considering that a 10 per cent increase in the share of the health budget would require directing funds away from other services or increasing taxation by $1 billion, is that it will not happen. The Government must take into account the sustainability of the services that it must provide to the community. That is why the Government has appointed a health reform team to ensure that, despite those financial issues, services can be delivered in a sustainable way in the future. I have been asked to reconcile the statement I made yesterday with the budget papers and with the Premier’s statement. I have told the Leader of the Opposition how those matters are reconciled. The Leader of the Opposition is talking about budget appropriations and I am talking about expenses and the out turn. If the Leader of the Opposition - Mr C.J. Barnett: Give us a break! Who would fall for that? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: I would be happy to have Treasury brief the Leader of the Opposition on the matter.
(2) How does the Treasurer also reconcile this statement with the Premier’s media release on 22 December 2001, which states - . . . total health spending for 2001-02 of $2.3billion represented a seven per cent increase on last year. (3) Will the Treasurer undertake to provide a full explanation of this apparent $226 million discrepancy? In other words, which is correct, the budget papers or the statement he made in the House yesterday? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The statement I made in the House yesterday was based on expenses in the health portfolio for each financial year. Firstly, expenses for the health portfolio in each financial year are based on the out turn for that financial year, not simply the expected out turn at the time of the budget. As members of this House and the public well know, in recent years, under the previous Government and under this Government, supplementary funding arrangements for the health portfolio have consistently been in place. Secondly, the expenses item covers appropriations, run-downs in cash balances, expenditure funded from commonwealth grants and expenditure funded from the revenue from the sale of services. Many factors make up the expenses item. The point of the information that I provided to the House yesterday was to show how expenses in the health portfolio have grown over the years. They have grown at rates ranging from three per cent in one coalition year to 13 per cent in another year. The important point about that rate of growth of expenses is that it appears to average about 7.5 per cent a year. If we project that rate of growth of expenses in the health portfolio - however it is funded - to 2010-11, in fewer than 10 years more than 34 per cent of the state budget will be spent on health. At the moment, about 24.2 per cent of the state budget is spent on health. If the percentage of the budget spent on health were increased by about 10 per cent, it would equate to taking $1 billion out of today’s budget allocation for education, community safety and all the other things that we fund, and shifting it into the health system. Alternatively, it would require raising an additional $1 billion a year in taxation. Under those circumstances, the taxation increases would total more than all the taxation increases that have occurred over the past 10 years in this State. This is a very serious issue. It is a serious financial issue, and it is a serious financial issue for the delivery of services. We want sustainable health services to meet the needs of our community into the future. The only conclusion that can be reached, after considering that a 10 per cent increase in the share of the health budget would require directing funds away from other services or increasing taxation by $1 billion, is that it will not happen. The Government must take into account the sustainability of the services that it must provide to the community. That is why the Government has appointed a health reform team to ensure that, despite those financial issues, services can be delivered in a sustainable way in the future. I have been asked to reconcile the statement I made yesterday with the budget papers and with the Premier’s statement. I have told the Leader of the Opposition how those matters are reconciled. The Leader of the Opposition is talking about budget appropriations and I am talking about expenses and the out turn. If the Leader of the Opposition - Mr C.J. Barnett: Give us a break! Who would fall for that? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: I would be happy to have Treasury brief the Leader of the Opposition on the matter.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(3) The statement I made in the House yesterday was based on expenses in the health portfolio for each financial year. Firstly, expenses for the health portfolio in each financial year are based on the out turn for that financial year, not simply the expected out turn at the time of the budget. As members of this House and the public well know, in recent years, under the previous Government and under this Government, supplementary funding arrangements for the health portfolio have consistently been in place. Secondly, the expenses item covers appropriations, run-downs in cash balances, expenditure funded from commonwealth grants and expenditure funded from the revenue from the sale of services. Many factors make up the expenses item. The point of the information that I provided to the House yesterday was to show how expenses in the health portfolio have grown over the years. They have grown at rates ranging from three per cent in one coalition year to 13 per cent in another year. The important point about that rate of growth of expenses is that it appears to average about 7.5 per cent a year. If we project that rate of growth of expenses in the health portfolio - however it is funded - to 2010-11, in fewer than 10 years more than 34 per cent of the state budget will be spent on health. At the moment, about 24.2 per cent of the state budget is spent on health. If the percentage of the budget spent on health were increased by about 10 per cent, it would equate to taking $1 billion out of today’s budget allocation for education, community safety and all the other things that we fund, and shifting it into the health system. Alternatively, it would require raising an additional $1 billion a year in taxation. Under those circumstances, the taxation increases would total more than all the taxation increases that have occurred over the past 10 years in this State. This is a very serious issue. It is a serious financial issue, and it is a serious financial issue for the delivery of services. We want sustainable health services to meet the needs of our community into the future. The only conclusion that can be reached, after considering that a 10 per cent increase in the share of the health budget would require directing funds away from other services or increasing taxation by $1 billion, is that it will not happen. The Government must take into account the sustainability of the services that it must provide to the community. That is why the Government has appointed a health reform team to ensure that, despite those financial issues, services can be delivered in a sustainable way in the future. I have been asked to reconcile the statement I made yesterday with the budget papers and with the Premier’s statement. I have told the Leader of the Opposition how those matters are reconciled. The Leader of the Opposition is talking about budget appropriations and I am talking about expenses and the out turn. If the Leader of the Opposition - Mr C.J. Barnett: Give us a break! Who would fall for that? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: I would be happy to have Treasury brief the Leader of the Opposition on the matter.
(1)-(3) The statement I made in the House yesterday was based on expenses in the health portfolio for each financial year. Firstly, expenses for the health portfolio in each financial year are based on the out turn for that financial year, not simply the expected out turn at the time of the budget. As members of this House and the public well know, in recent years, under the previous Government and under this Government, supplementary funding arrangements for the health portfolio have consistently been in place. Secondly, the expenses item covers appropriations, run-downs in cash balances, expenditure funded from commonwealth grants and expenditure funded from the revenue from the sale of services. Many factors make up the expenses item. The point of the information that I provided to the House yesterday was to show how expenses in the health portfolio have grown over the years. They have grown at rates ranging from three per cent in one coalition year to 13 per cent in another year. The important point about that rate of growth of expenses is that it appears to average about 7.5 per cent a year. If we project that rate of growth of expenses in the health portfolio - however it is funded - to 2010-11, in fewer than 10 years more than 34 per cent of the state budget will be spent on health. At the moment, about 24.2 per cent of the state budget is spent on health. If the percentage of the budget spent on health were increased by about 10 per cent, it would equate to taking $1 billion out of today’s budget allocation for education, community safety and all the other things that we fund, and shifting it into the health system. Alternatively, it would require raising an additional $1 billion a year in taxation. Under those circumstances, the taxation increases would total more than all the taxation increases that have occurred over the past 10 years in this State. This is a very serious issue. It is a serious financial issue, and it is a serious financial issue for the delivery of services. We want sustainable health services to meet the needs of our community into the future. The only conclusion that can be reached, after considering that a 10 per cent increase in the share of the health budget would require directing funds away from other services or increasing taxation by $1 billion, is that it will not happen. The Government must take into account the sustainability of the services that it must provide to the community. That is why the Government has appointed a health reform team to ensure that, despite those financial issues, services can be delivered in a sustainable way in the future. I have been asked to reconcile the statement I made yesterday with the budget papers and with the Premier’s statement. I have told the Leader of the Opposition how those matters are reconciled. The Leader of the Opposition is talking about budget appropriations and I am talking about expenses and the out turn. If the Leader of the Opposition - Mr C.J. Barnett: Give us a break! Who would fall for that? The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: I would be happy to have Treasury brief the Leader of the Opposition on the matter.
I have been asked to reconcile the statement I made yesterday with the budget papers and with the Premier’s statement. I have told the Leader of the Opposition how those matters are reconciled. The Leader of the Opposition is talking about budget appropriations and I am talking about expenses and the out turn. If the Leader of the Opposition -
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER: I would be happy to have Treasury brief the Leader of the Opposition on the matter.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: I would be happy to have Treasury brief the Leader of the Opposition on the matter.
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.