❓ Mr. Barnett questions the Acting Premier about the importance of Burswood's share price in raising equity to settle a $67 million debt. Mr. Ripper responds by discussing the government's decision to remove the 10% shareholding limit in Burswood, arguing it's in the public interest.
AnsweredQoN 191Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Is the Acting Premier aware that the Burswood share price will be a key factor in assisting the company to raise new equity to settle on a $67 million debt related to its 1997 agreement to buy the five-star Burswood Hotel? (2) If so, when did he first become aware of this fact? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) When the Government considered the 10 per cent limit on share holdings in Burswood, it was considered from a public policy point of view and the Government asked: what was the public policy argument for that? What was the public policy purpose of it? What would be a good public policy outcome? My view and the Government’s view is based on answers to the following question: is there any good reason for maintaining that limit? I do not think there is. People should be able to trade in Burswood shares. It provides the opportunity for the company to raise capital in the same way as other companies without any special restriction. It exposes Burswood management to accountability requirements to which managers in the private sector are exposed. They know that share prices are seen as indicators of their performance. If the market views their performance as inadequate, the share price will fall and other people can buy the shares, and there is always the chance that new management can be brought in. From a public policy point of view it is better that Burswood is exposed to the same requirements as are other companies and to the same potential accountability for its performance. Should the market respond in a particular way, that is the business of the market. Share prices rise and fall. The Government did not undertake negotiations with Burswood with any intention of influencing the market one way or another. We looked for a good outcome for Western Australia and we have an outcome, which will preserve the competitiveness of the Burswood casino and allow it to attract more tourist input and international commission business for gaming when those areas are suffering a decline. It will provide more revenue to the State, which we can spend on health, education and law and order. On balance it is a good outcome.
(2) If so, when did he first become aware of this fact? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) When the Government considered the 10 per cent limit on share holdings in Burswood, it was considered from a public policy point of view and the Government asked: what was the public policy argument for that? What was the public policy purpose of it? What would be a good public policy outcome? My view and the Government’s view is based on answers to the following question: is there any good reason for maintaining that limit? I do not think there is. People should be able to trade in Burswood shares. It provides the opportunity for the company to raise capital in the same way as other companies without any special restriction. It exposes Burswood management to accountability requirements to which managers in the private sector are exposed. They know that share prices are seen as indicators of their performance. If the market views their performance as inadequate, the share price will fall and other people can buy the shares, and there is always the chance that new management can be brought in. From a public policy point of view it is better that Burswood is exposed to the same requirements as are other companies and to the same potential accountability for its performance. Should the market respond in a particular way, that is the business of the market. Share prices rise and fall. The Government did not undertake negotiations with Burswood with any intention of influencing the market one way or another. We looked for a good outcome for Western Australia and we have an outcome, which will preserve the competitiveness of the Burswood casino and allow it to attract more tourist input and international commission business for gaming when those areas are suffering a decline. It will provide more revenue to the State, which we can spend on health, education and law and order. On balance it is a good outcome.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) When the Government considered the 10 per cent limit on share holdings in Burswood, it was considered from a public policy point of view and the Government asked: what was the public policy argument for that? What was the public policy purpose of it? What would be a good public policy outcome? My view and the Government’s view is based on answers to the following question: is there any good reason for maintaining that limit? I do not think there is. People should be able to trade in Burswood shares. It provides the opportunity for the company to raise capital in the same way as other companies without any special restriction. It exposes Burswood management to accountability requirements to which managers in the private sector are exposed. They know that share prices are seen as indicators of their performance. If the market views their performance as inadequate, the share price will fall and other people can buy the shares, and there is always the chance that new management can be brought in. From a public policy point of view it is better that Burswood is exposed to the same requirements as are other companies and to the same potential accountability for its performance. Should the market respond in a particular way, that is the business of the market. Share prices rise and fall. The Government did not undertake negotiations with Burswood with any intention of influencing the market one way or another. We looked for a good outcome for Western Australia and we have an outcome, which will preserve the competitiveness of the Burswood casino and allow it to attract more tourist input and international commission business for gaming when those areas are suffering a decline. It will provide more revenue to the State, which we can spend on health, education and law and order. On balance it is a good outcome.
(1)-(2) When the Government considered the 10 per cent limit on share holdings in Burswood, it was considered from a public policy point of view and the Government asked: what was the public policy argument for that? What was the public policy purpose of it? What would be a good public policy outcome? My view and the Government’s view is based on answers to the following question: is there any good reason for maintaining that limit? I do not think there is. People should be able to trade in Burswood shares. It provides the opportunity for the company to raise capital in the same way as other companies without any special restriction. It exposes Burswood management to accountability requirements to which managers in the private sector are exposed. They know that share prices are seen as indicators of their performance. If the market views their performance as inadequate, the share price will fall and other people can buy the shares, and there is always the chance that new management can be brought in. From a public policy point of view it is better that Burswood is exposed to the same requirements as are other companies and to the same potential accountability for its performance. Should the market respond in a particular way, that is the business of the market. Share prices rise and fall. The Government did not undertake negotiations with Burswood with any intention of influencing the market one way or another. We looked for a good outcome for Western Australia and we have an outcome, which will preserve the competitiveness of the Burswood casino and allow it to attract more tourist input and international commission business for gaming when those areas are suffering a decline. It will provide more revenue to the State, which we can spend on health, education and law and order. On balance it is a good outcome.
From a public policy point of view it is better that Burswood is exposed to the same requirements as are other companies and to the same potential accountability for its performance. Should the market respond in a particular way, that is the business of the market. Share prices rise and fall. The Government did not undertake negotiations with Burswood with any intention of influencing the market one way or another. We looked for a good outcome for Western Australia and we have an outcome, which will preserve the competitiveness of the Burswood casino and allow it to attract more tourist input and international commission business for gaming when those areas are suffering a decline. It will provide more revenue to the State, which we can spend on health, education and law and order. On balance it is a good outcome.
(2) If so, when did he first become aware of this fact? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) When the Government considered the 10 per cent limit on share holdings in Burswood, it was considered from a public policy point of view and the Government asked: what was the public policy argument for that? What was the public policy purpose of it? What would be a good public policy outcome? My view and the Government’s view is based on answers to the following question: is there any good reason for maintaining that limit? I do not think there is. People should be able to trade in Burswood shares. It provides the opportunity for the company to raise capital in the same way as other companies without any special restriction. It exposes Burswood management to accountability requirements to which managers in the private sector are exposed. They know that share prices are seen as indicators of their performance. If the market views their performance as inadequate, the share price will fall and other people can buy the shares, and there is always the chance that new management can be brought in. From a public policy point of view it is better that Burswood is exposed to the same requirements as are other companies and to the same potential accountability for its performance. Should the market respond in a particular way, that is the business of the market. Share prices rise and fall. The Government did not undertake negotiations with Burswood with any intention of influencing the market one way or another. We looked for a good outcome for Western Australia and we have an outcome, which will preserve the competitiveness of the Burswood casino and allow it to attract more tourist input and international commission business for gaming when those areas are suffering a decline. It will provide more revenue to the State, which we can spend on health, education and law and order. On balance it is a good outcome.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) When the Government considered the 10 per cent limit on share holdings in Burswood, it was considered from a public policy point of view and the Government asked: what was the public policy argument for that? What was the public policy purpose of it? What would be a good public policy outcome? My view and the Government’s view is based on answers to the following question: is there any good reason for maintaining that limit? I do not think there is. People should be able to trade in Burswood shares. It provides the opportunity for the company to raise capital in the same way as other companies without any special restriction. It exposes Burswood management to accountability requirements to which managers in the private sector are exposed. They know that share prices are seen as indicators of their performance. If the market views their performance as inadequate, the share price will fall and other people can buy the shares, and there is always the chance that new management can be brought in. From a public policy point of view it is better that Burswood is exposed to the same requirements as are other companies and to the same potential accountability for its performance. Should the market respond in a particular way, that is the business of the market. Share prices rise and fall. The Government did not undertake negotiations with Burswood with any intention of influencing the market one way or another. We looked for a good outcome for Western Australia and we have an outcome, which will preserve the competitiveness of the Burswood casino and allow it to attract more tourist input and international commission business for gaming when those areas are suffering a decline. It will provide more revenue to the State, which we can spend on health, education and law and order. On balance it is a good outcome.
(1)-(2) When the Government considered the 10 per cent limit on share holdings in Burswood, it was considered from a public policy point of view and the Government asked: what was the public policy argument for that? What was the public policy purpose of it? What would be a good public policy outcome? My view and the Government’s view is based on answers to the following question: is there any good reason for maintaining that limit? I do not think there is. People should be able to trade in Burswood shares. It provides the opportunity for the company to raise capital in the same way as other companies without any special restriction. It exposes Burswood management to accountability requirements to which managers in the private sector are exposed. They know that share prices are seen as indicators of their performance. If the market views their performance as inadequate, the share price will fall and other people can buy the shares, and there is always the chance that new management can be brought in. From a public policy point of view it is better that Burswood is exposed to the same requirements as are other companies and to the same potential accountability for its performance. Should the market respond in a particular way, that is the business of the market. Share prices rise and fall. The Government did not undertake negotiations with Burswood with any intention of influencing the market one way or another. We looked for a good outcome for Western Australia and we have an outcome, which will preserve the competitiveness of the Burswood casino and allow it to attract more tourist input and international commission business for gaming when those areas are suffering a decline. It will provide more revenue to the State, which we can spend on health, education and law and order. On balance it is a good outcome.
From a public policy point of view it is better that Burswood is exposed to the same requirements as are other companies and to the same potential accountability for its performance. Should the market respond in a particular way, that is the business of the market. Share prices rise and fall. The Government did not undertake negotiations with Burswood with any intention of influencing the market one way or another. We looked for a good outcome for Western Australia and we have an outcome, which will preserve the competitiveness of the Burswood casino and allow it to attract more tourist input and international commission business for gaming when those areas are suffering a decline. It will provide more revenue to the State, which we can spend on health, education and law and order. On balance it is a good outcome.
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.