❓ The Treasurer addresses concerns raised by the Leader of the Opposition regarding WA's financial position, attributing deterioration to the previous government's spending and highlighting potential risks to the State's credit rating.
AnsweredQoN 31Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FINANCES, WESTERN AUSTRALIA’S POSITION
(1) Is the Treasurer aware that, on ABC radio yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition said that it was obvious that the financial position of Western Australia has deteriorated very quickly, but that the Government had a clean set of accounts, and a clean surplus, when it came into power? (2) Can the Treasurer advise whether the Leader of the Opposition’s assertions are a full and frank assessment of the State’s financial position? Mr RIPPER
(1) Is the Treasurer aware that, on ABC radio yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition said that it was obvious that the financial position of Western Australia has deteriorated very quickly, but that the Government had a clean set of accounts, and a clean surplus, when it came into power? (2) Can the Treasurer advise whether the Leader of the Opposition’s assertions are a full and frank assessment of the State’s financial position? Mr RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Roleystone for his question. (1)-(2) I am aware of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Labor Party used to accuse the former Leader of the Liberal Party, Richard Court, of suffering from deficit denial. It seems as though deficit denial is contagious. It must be a virus passed on with the tenuous mantle of authority that constitutes the leadership of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. These are tough times, but I notice that it is not exactly happy hour on the other side of the Chamber. My mother used to have a saying about being wary in case the wind changed and facial expressions became permanently fixed. The scowls we have been witnessing from the members opposite during this question time bear out the truth of her assertion. Under coalition financial management, Western Australia had four operating deficits in a row, and was facing two more in future years, totalling $110 million. The Leader of the Opposition said there has been a deterioration in Western Australia’s finances, and so there has been, but that deterioration occurred during the time of the previous coalition Government. The chart I have here shows two sets of forecasts. The forecasts shown in blue are the surpluses that the previous Government said would apply at the time it brought down the last budget. The chart shows that in 2003-04, a surplus of $219 million was forecast. The position that constitutes the legacy for the incoming Government is the position revealed in Treasury’s pre-election statement, which are the figures shown on the red bar. That $219 million surplus in 2003-04 becomes a $41.4 million deficit - an almost $250 million turnaround in the forecast. Why did that sort of deterioration occur? It was because the previous Government went on a billion-dollar spending spree in its last desperate year, between its last budget and the election. What was left for the incoming Government was a financial time bomb, with two deficits on the way. The Leader of the Opposition says that the previous Government left us with clean accounts. What clean accounts? The Swan Bells project was $2 million over budget. The health system has a $90 million blow-out. The failed Matrix bus deal left a $2.5 million bill. Which set of accounts is clean? What the present Government has been left with is a situation in which forecast debt is rising relative to revenue, to an alarming degree. That is one reason Treasury has advised the Government that the AAA credit rating of the State is at risk. As soon as it had a chance to advise the incoming Government, the first advice given by Treasury was that the credit rating was at risk. The current Leader of the Opposition cannot run away from this issue. He was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government. He was one of the ministers responsible for overseeing the budget. More to the point, he was one of those maverick senior ministers who let the former Treasurer down and contributed to the financial indiscipline of the previous Government. The present Government will not be like that. It will exercise some long overdue spending restraint. It will implement its election commitments, but will need to be very careful about its priorities. I make no apology - a tough budget will be brought down this year, but that is made necessary by the economic and financial legacy left by the previous Government.
(2) Can the Treasurer advise whether the Leader of the Opposition’s assertions are a full and frank assessment of the State’s financial position? Mr RIPPER replied: I thank the member for Roleystone for his question. (1)-(2) I am aware of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Labor Party used to accuse the former Leader of the Liberal Party, Richard Court, of suffering from deficit denial. It seems as though deficit denial is contagious. It must be a virus passed on with the tenuous mantle of authority that constitutes the leadership of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. These are tough times, but I notice that it is not exactly happy hour on the other side of the Chamber. My mother used to have a saying about being wary in case the wind changed and facial expressions became permanently fixed. The scowls we have been witnessing from the members opposite during this question time bear out the truth of her assertion. Under coalition financial management, Western Australia had four operating deficits in a row, and was facing two more in future years, totalling $110 million. The Leader of the Opposition said there has been a deterioration in Western Australia’s finances, and so there has been, but that deterioration occurred during the time of the previous coalition Government. The chart I have here shows two sets of forecasts. The forecasts shown in blue are the surpluses that the previous Government said would apply at the time it brought down the last budget. The chart shows that in 2003-04, a surplus of $219 million was forecast. The position that constitutes the legacy for the incoming Government is the position revealed in Treasury’s pre-election statement, which are the figures shown on the red bar. That $219 million surplus in 2003-04 becomes a $41.4 million deficit - an almost $250 million turnaround in the forecast. Why did that sort of deterioration occur? It was because the previous Government went on a billion-dollar spending spree in its last desperate year, between its last budget and the election. What was left for the incoming Government was a financial time bomb, with two deficits on the way. The Leader of the Opposition says that the previous Government left us with clean accounts. What clean accounts? The Swan Bells project was $2 million over budget. The health system has a $90 million blow-out. The failed Matrix bus deal left a $2.5 million bill. Which set of accounts is clean? What the present Government has been left with is a situation in which forecast debt is rising relative to revenue, to an alarming degree. That is one reason Treasury has advised the Government that the AAA credit rating of the State is at risk. As soon as it had a chance to advise the incoming Government, the first advice given by Treasury was that the credit rating was at risk. The current Leader of the Opposition cannot run away from this issue. He was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government. He was one of the ministers responsible for overseeing the budget. More to the point, he was one of those maverick senior ministers who let the former Treasurer down and contributed to the financial indiscipline of the previous Government. The present Government will not be like that. It will exercise some long overdue spending restraint. It will implement its election commitments, but will need to be very careful about its priorities. I make no apology - a tough budget will be brought down this year, but that is made necessary by the economic and financial legacy left by the previous Government.
Mr RIPPER replied: I thank the member for Roleystone for his question. (1)-(2) I am aware of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Labor Party used to accuse the former Leader of the Liberal Party, Richard Court, of suffering from deficit denial. It seems as though deficit denial is contagious. It must be a virus passed on with the tenuous mantle of authority that constitutes the leadership of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. These are tough times, but I notice that it is not exactly happy hour on the other side of the Chamber. My mother used to have a saying about being wary in case the wind changed and facial expressions became permanently fixed. The scowls we have been witnessing from the members opposite during this question time bear out the truth of her assertion. Under coalition financial management, Western Australia had four operating deficits in a row, and was facing two more in future years, totalling $110 million. The Leader of the Opposition said there has been a deterioration in Western Australia’s finances, and so there has been, but that deterioration occurred during the time of the previous coalition Government. The chart I have here shows two sets of forecasts. The forecasts shown in blue are the surpluses that the previous Government said would apply at the time it brought down the last budget. The chart shows that in 2003-04, a surplus of $219 million was forecast. The position that constitutes the legacy for the incoming Government is the position revealed in Treasury’s pre-election statement, which are the figures shown on the red bar. That $219 million surplus in 2003-04 becomes a $41.4 million deficit - an almost $250 million turnaround in the forecast. Why did that sort of deterioration occur? It was because the previous Government went on a billion-dollar spending spree in its last desperate year, between its last budget and the election. What was left for the incoming Government was a financial time bomb, with two deficits on the way. The Leader of the Opposition says that the previous Government left us with clean accounts. What clean accounts? The Swan Bells project was $2 million over budget. The health system has a $90 million blow-out. The failed Matrix bus deal left a $2.5 million bill. Which set of accounts is clean? What the present Government has been left with is a situation in which forecast debt is rising relative to revenue, to an alarming degree. That is one reason Treasury has advised the Government that the AAA credit rating of the State is at risk. As soon as it had a chance to advise the incoming Government, the first advice given by Treasury was that the credit rating was at risk. The current Leader of the Opposition cannot run away from this issue. He was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government. He was one of the ministers responsible for overseeing the budget. More to the point, he was one of those maverick senior ministers who let the former Treasurer down and contributed to the financial indiscipline of the previous Government. The present Government will not be like that. It will exercise some long overdue spending restraint. It will implement its election commitments, but will need to be very careful about its priorities. I make no apology - a tough budget will be brought down this year, but that is made necessary by the economic and financial legacy left by the previous Government.
I thank the member for Roleystone for his question. (1)-(2) I am aware of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Labor Party used to accuse the former Leader of the Liberal Party, Richard Court, of suffering from deficit denial. It seems as though deficit denial is contagious. It must be a virus passed on with the tenuous mantle of authority that constitutes the leadership of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. These are tough times, but I notice that it is not exactly happy hour on the other side of the Chamber. My mother used to have a saying about being wary in case the wind changed and facial expressions became permanently fixed. The scowls we have been witnessing from the members opposite during this question time bear out the truth of her assertion. Under coalition financial management, Western Australia had four operating deficits in a row, and was facing two more in future years, totalling $110 million. The Leader of the Opposition said there has been a deterioration in Western Australia’s finances, and so there has been, but that deterioration occurred during the time of the previous coalition Government. The chart I have here shows two sets of forecasts. The forecasts shown in blue are the surpluses that the previous Government said would apply at the time it brought down the last budget. The chart shows that in 2003-04, a surplus of $219 million was forecast. The position that constitutes the legacy for the incoming Government is the position revealed in Treasury’s pre-election statement, which are the figures shown on the red bar. That $219 million surplus in 2003-04 becomes a $41.4 million deficit - an almost $250 million turnaround in the forecast. Why did that sort of deterioration occur? It was because the previous Government went on a billion-dollar spending spree in its last desperate year, between its last budget and the election. What was left for the incoming Government was a financial time bomb, with two deficits on the way. The Leader of the Opposition says that the previous Government left us with clean accounts. What clean accounts? The Swan Bells project was $2 million over budget. The health system has a $90 million blow-out. The failed Matrix bus deal left a $2.5 million bill. Which set of accounts is clean? What the present Government has been left with is a situation in which forecast debt is rising relative to revenue, to an alarming degree. That is one reason Treasury has advised the Government that the AAA credit rating of the State is at risk. As soon as it had a chance to advise the incoming Government, the first advice given by Treasury was that the credit rating was at risk. The current Leader of the Opposition cannot run away from this issue. He was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government. He was one of the ministers responsible for overseeing the budget. More to the point, he was one of those maverick senior ministers who let the former Treasurer down and contributed to the financial indiscipline of the previous Government. The present Government will not be like that. It will exercise some long overdue spending restraint. It will implement its election commitments, but will need to be very careful about its priorities. I make no apology - a tough budget will be brought down this year, but that is made necessary by the economic and financial legacy left by the previous Government.
(1)-(2) I am aware of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Labor Party used to accuse the former Leader of the Liberal Party, Richard Court, of suffering from deficit denial. It seems as though deficit denial is contagious. It must be a virus passed on with the tenuous mantle of authority that constitutes the leadership of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. These are tough times, but I notice that it is not exactly happy hour on the other side of the Chamber. My mother used to have a saying about being wary in case the wind changed and facial expressions became permanently fixed. The scowls we have been witnessing from the members opposite during this question time bear out the truth of her assertion. Under coalition financial management, Western Australia had four operating deficits in a row, and was facing two more in future years, totalling $110 million. The Leader of the Opposition said there has been a deterioration in Western Australia’s finances, and so there has been, but that deterioration occurred during the time of the previous coalition Government. The chart I have here shows two sets of forecasts. The forecasts shown in blue are the surpluses that the previous Government said would apply at the time it brought down the last budget. The chart shows that in 2003-04, a surplus of $219 million was forecast. The position that constitutes the legacy for the incoming Government is the position revealed in Treasury’s pre-election statement, which are the figures shown on the red bar. That $219 million surplus in 2003-04 becomes a $41.4 million deficit - an almost $250 million turnaround in the forecast. Why did that sort of deterioration occur? It was because the previous Government went on a billion-dollar spending spree in its last desperate year, between its last budget and the election. What was left for the incoming Government was a financial time bomb, with two deficits on the way. The Leader of the Opposition says that the previous Government left us with clean accounts. What clean accounts? The Swan Bells project was $2 million over budget. The health system has a $90 million blow-out. The failed Matrix bus deal left a $2.5 million bill. Which set of accounts is clean? What the present Government has been left with is a situation in which forecast debt is rising relative to revenue, to an alarming degree. That is one reason Treasury has advised the Government that the AAA credit rating of the State is at risk. As soon as it had a chance to advise the incoming Government, the first advice given by Treasury was that the credit rating was at risk. The current Leader of the Opposition cannot run away from this issue. He was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government. He was one of the ministers responsible for overseeing the budget. More to the point, he was one of those maverick senior ministers who let the former Treasurer down and contributed to the financial indiscipline of the previous Government. The present Government will not be like that. It will exercise some long overdue spending restraint. It will implement its election commitments, but will need to be very careful about its priorities. I make no apology - a tough budget will be brought down this year, but that is made necessary by the economic and financial legacy left by the previous Government.
The current Leader of the Opposition cannot run away from this issue. He was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government. He was one of the ministers responsible for overseeing the budget. More to the point, he was one of those maverick senior ministers who let the former Treasurer down and contributed to the financial indiscipline of the previous Government. The present Government will not be like that. It will exercise some long overdue spending restraint. It will implement its election commitments, but will need to be very careful about its priorities. I make no apology - a tough budget will be brought down this year, but that is made necessary by the economic and financial legacy left by the previous Government.
(2) Can the Treasurer advise whether the Leader of the Opposition’s assertions are a full and frank assessment of the State’s financial position? Mr RIPPER replied: I thank the member for Roleystone for his question. (1)-(2) I am aware of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Labor Party used to accuse the former Leader of the Liberal Party, Richard Court, of suffering from deficit denial. It seems as though deficit denial is contagious. It must be a virus passed on with the tenuous mantle of authority that constitutes the leadership of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. These are tough times, but I notice that it is not exactly happy hour on the other side of the Chamber. My mother used to have a saying about being wary in case the wind changed and facial expressions became permanently fixed. The scowls we have been witnessing from the members opposite during this question time bear out the truth of her assertion. Under coalition financial management, Western Australia had four operating deficits in a row, and was facing two more in future years, totalling $110 million. The Leader of the Opposition said there has been a deterioration in Western Australia’s finances, and so there has been, but that deterioration occurred during the time of the previous coalition Government. The chart I have here shows two sets of forecasts. The forecasts shown in blue are the surpluses that the previous Government said would apply at the time it brought down the last budget. The chart shows that in 2003-04, a surplus of $219 million was forecast. The position that constitutes the legacy for the incoming Government is the position revealed in Treasury’s pre-election statement, which are the figures shown on the red bar. That $219 million surplus in 2003-04 becomes a $41.4 million deficit - an almost $250 million turnaround in the forecast. Why did that sort of deterioration occur? It was because the previous Government went on a billion-dollar spending spree in its last desperate year, between its last budget and the election. What was left for the incoming Government was a financial time bomb, with two deficits on the way. The Leader of the Opposition says that the previous Government left us with clean accounts. What clean accounts? The Swan Bells project was $2 million over budget. The health system has a $90 million blow-out. The failed Matrix bus deal left a $2.5 million bill. Which set of accounts is clean? What the present Government has been left with is a situation in which forecast debt is rising relative to revenue, to an alarming degree. That is one reason Treasury has advised the Government that the AAA credit rating of the State is at risk. As soon as it had a chance to advise the incoming Government, the first advice given by Treasury was that the credit rating was at risk. The current Leader of the Opposition cannot run away from this issue. He was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government. He was one of the ministers responsible for overseeing the budget. More to the point, he was one of those maverick senior ministers who let the former Treasurer down and contributed to the financial indiscipline of the previous Government. The present Government will not be like that. It will exercise some long overdue spending restraint. It will implement its election commitments, but will need to be very careful about its priorities. I make no apology - a tough budget will be brought down this year, but that is made necessary by the economic and financial legacy left by the previous Government.
Mr RIPPER replied: I thank the member for Roleystone for his question. (1)-(2) I am aware of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Labor Party used to accuse the former Leader of the Liberal Party, Richard Court, of suffering from deficit denial. It seems as though deficit denial is contagious. It must be a virus passed on with the tenuous mantle of authority that constitutes the leadership of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. These are tough times, but I notice that it is not exactly happy hour on the other side of the Chamber. My mother used to have a saying about being wary in case the wind changed and facial expressions became permanently fixed. The scowls we have been witnessing from the members opposite during this question time bear out the truth of her assertion. Under coalition financial management, Western Australia had four operating deficits in a row, and was facing two more in future years, totalling $110 million. The Leader of the Opposition said there has been a deterioration in Western Australia’s finances, and so there has been, but that deterioration occurred during the time of the previous coalition Government. The chart I have here shows two sets of forecasts. The forecasts shown in blue are the surpluses that the previous Government said would apply at the time it brought down the last budget. The chart shows that in 2003-04, a surplus of $219 million was forecast. The position that constitutes the legacy for the incoming Government is the position revealed in Treasury’s pre-election statement, which are the figures shown on the red bar. That $219 million surplus in 2003-04 becomes a $41.4 million deficit - an almost $250 million turnaround in the forecast. Why did that sort of deterioration occur? It was because the previous Government went on a billion-dollar spending spree in its last desperate year, between its last budget and the election. What was left for the incoming Government was a financial time bomb, with two deficits on the way. The Leader of the Opposition says that the previous Government left us with clean accounts. What clean accounts? The Swan Bells project was $2 million over budget. The health system has a $90 million blow-out. The failed Matrix bus deal left a $2.5 million bill. Which set of accounts is clean? What the present Government has been left with is a situation in which forecast debt is rising relative to revenue, to an alarming degree. That is one reason Treasury has advised the Government that the AAA credit rating of the State is at risk. As soon as it had a chance to advise the incoming Government, the first advice given by Treasury was that the credit rating was at risk. The current Leader of the Opposition cannot run away from this issue. He was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government. He was one of the ministers responsible for overseeing the budget. More to the point, he was one of those maverick senior ministers who let the former Treasurer down and contributed to the financial indiscipline of the previous Government. The present Government will not be like that. It will exercise some long overdue spending restraint. It will implement its election commitments, but will need to be very careful about its priorities. I make no apology - a tough budget will be brought down this year, but that is made necessary by the economic and financial legacy left by the previous Government.
I thank the member for Roleystone for his question. (1)-(2) I am aware of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Labor Party used to accuse the former Leader of the Liberal Party, Richard Court, of suffering from deficit denial. It seems as though deficit denial is contagious. It must be a virus passed on with the tenuous mantle of authority that constitutes the leadership of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. These are tough times, but I notice that it is not exactly happy hour on the other side of the Chamber. My mother used to have a saying about being wary in case the wind changed and facial expressions became permanently fixed. The scowls we have been witnessing from the members opposite during this question time bear out the truth of her assertion. Under coalition financial management, Western Australia had four operating deficits in a row, and was facing two more in future years, totalling $110 million. The Leader of the Opposition said there has been a deterioration in Western Australia’s finances, and so there has been, but that deterioration occurred during the time of the previous coalition Government. The chart I have here shows two sets of forecasts. The forecasts shown in blue are the surpluses that the previous Government said would apply at the time it brought down the last budget. The chart shows that in 2003-04, a surplus of $219 million was forecast. The position that constitutes the legacy for the incoming Government is the position revealed in Treasury’s pre-election statement, which are the figures shown on the red bar. That $219 million surplus in 2003-04 becomes a $41.4 million deficit - an almost $250 million turnaround in the forecast. Why did that sort of deterioration occur? It was because the previous Government went on a billion-dollar spending spree in its last desperate year, between its last budget and the election. What was left for the incoming Government was a financial time bomb, with two deficits on the way. The Leader of the Opposition says that the previous Government left us with clean accounts. What clean accounts? The Swan Bells project was $2 million over budget. The health system has a $90 million blow-out. The failed Matrix bus deal left a $2.5 million bill. Which set of accounts is clean? What the present Government has been left with is a situation in which forecast debt is rising relative to revenue, to an alarming degree. That is one reason Treasury has advised the Government that the AAA credit rating of the State is at risk. As soon as it had a chance to advise the incoming Government, the first advice given by Treasury was that the credit rating was at risk. The current Leader of the Opposition cannot run away from this issue. He was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government. He was one of the ministers responsible for overseeing the budget. More to the point, he was one of those maverick senior ministers who let the former Treasurer down and contributed to the financial indiscipline of the previous Government. The present Government will not be like that. It will exercise some long overdue spending restraint. It will implement its election commitments, but will need to be very careful about its priorities. I make no apology - a tough budget will be brought down this year, but that is made necessary by the economic and financial legacy left by the previous Government.
(1)-(2) I am aware of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Labor Party used to accuse the former Leader of the Liberal Party, Richard Court, of suffering from deficit denial. It seems as though deficit denial is contagious. It must be a virus passed on with the tenuous mantle of authority that constitutes the leadership of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. These are tough times, but I notice that it is not exactly happy hour on the other side of the Chamber. My mother used to have a saying about being wary in case the wind changed and facial expressions became permanently fixed. The scowls we have been witnessing from the members opposite during this question time bear out the truth of her assertion. Under coalition financial management, Western Australia had four operating deficits in a row, and was facing two more in future years, totalling $110 million. The Leader of the Opposition said there has been a deterioration in Western Australia’s finances, and so there has been, but that deterioration occurred during the time of the previous coalition Government. The chart I have here shows two sets of forecasts. The forecasts shown in blue are the surpluses that the previous Government said would apply at the time it brought down the last budget. The chart shows that in 2003-04, a surplus of $219 million was forecast. The position that constitutes the legacy for the incoming Government is the position revealed in Treasury’s pre-election statement, which are the figures shown on the red bar. That $219 million surplus in 2003-04 becomes a $41.4 million deficit - an almost $250 million turnaround in the forecast. Why did that sort of deterioration occur? It was because the previous Government went on a billion-dollar spending spree in its last desperate year, between its last budget and the election. What was left for the incoming Government was a financial time bomb, with two deficits on the way. The Leader of the Opposition says that the previous Government left us with clean accounts. What clean accounts? The Swan Bells project was $2 million over budget. The health system has a $90 million blow-out. The failed Matrix bus deal left a $2.5 million bill. Which set of accounts is clean? What the present Government has been left with is a situation in which forecast debt is rising relative to revenue, to an alarming degree. That is one reason Treasury has advised the Government that the AAA credit rating of the State is at risk. As soon as it had a chance to advise the incoming Government, the first advice given by Treasury was that the credit rating was at risk. The current Leader of the Opposition cannot run away from this issue. He was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government. He was one of the ministers responsible for overseeing the budget. More to the point, he was one of those maverick senior ministers who let the former Treasurer down and contributed to the financial indiscipline of the previous Government. The present Government will not be like that. It will exercise some long overdue spending restraint. It will implement its election commitments, but will need to be very careful about its priorities. I make no apology - a tough budget will be brought down this year, but that is made necessary by the economic and financial legacy left by the previous Government.
The current Leader of the Opposition cannot run away from this issue. He was on the Cabinet Budget Committee of the previous Government. He was one of the ministers responsible for overseeing the budget. More to the point, he was one of those maverick senior ministers who let the former Treasurer down and contributed to the financial indiscipline of the previous Government. The present Government will not be like that. It will exercise some long overdue spending restraint. It will implement its election commitments, but will need to be very careful about its priorities. I make no apology - a tough budget will be brought down this year, but that is made necessary by the economic and financial legacy left by the previous 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.