❓ Question on government expenditure growth compared to previous budget predictions and potential impact on capital works and debt. Treasurer defends spending by highlighting economic growth and service delivery.
AnsweredQoN 239Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
STATE BUDGET — EXPENDITURE GROWTH
I refer to the Treasurer’s previous 2005-06 budget, in which he predicted that general government expenditure growth would be 4.1 per cent for that year and 2.8 per cent, 4.1 per cent and 2.1 per cent for the forward estimates, when in reality the now proven expenditure growth in those years was seven per cent, 8.9 per cent, 9.2 per cent and an estimated 7.7 per cent. (1) With that history, how can the Western Australian community believe the Treasurer when he now predicts that he can restrict expenditure growth to 5.1 per cent, 3.6 per cent and 4.5 per cent in the forward estimates for this year’s budget? (2) Given the Treasurer’s proven inability to control government expenditure, what will be the average blow-out in project costs in the government’s $26 billion capital works budget that will drive the net debt-to-revenue ratio above the government’s self-imposed 47 per cent limit? Mr E.S. RIPPER
I refer to the Treasurer’s previous 2005-06 budget, in which he predicted that general government expenditure growth would be 4.1 per cent for that year and 2.8 per cent, 4.1 per cent and 2.1 per cent for the forward estimates, when in reality the now proven expenditure growth in those years was seven per cent, 8.9 per cent, 9.2 per cent and an estimated 7.7 per cent. (1) With that history, how can the Western Australian community believe the Treasurer when he now predicts that he can restrict expenditure growth to 5.1 per cent, 3.6 per cent and 4.5 per cent in the forward estimates for this year’s budget? (2) Given the Treasurer’s proven inability to control government expenditure, what will be the average blow-out in project costs in the government’s $26 billion capital works budget that will drive the net debt-to-revenue ratio above the government’s self-imposed 47 per cent limit? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) It is interesting that, at the first parliamentary sitting since the delivery of the budget, we are debating the 2005-06 budget. Clearly, the opposition does not want to debate the 2009 budget, and I can understand why. It is because we are delivering a $26 billion capital works program and cutting stamp duty by 15 per cent, or nearly $3 000, on an average-priced home. I can understand why the opposition would prefer to debate the 2005-06 budget rather than this one. The opposition needs to get its line of argument straight. Today the opposition will move a matter of public interest that, in effect, calls for more government expenditure. The shadow Minister for Education and Training has called for more expenditure on teachers’ salaries, the shadow Minister for Health has called for more expenditure and the shadow Minister for Police always calls for more expenditure, but now the shadow Treasurer is arguing for lower expenses. Which line will the opposition take? Will it take the line of all the shadow ministers in the other portfolios, who have called for and will continue to call for additional expenditure, or will it take the line of the shadow Treasurer? Alternatively, will the opposition have its cake and eat it too and take both lines? I think they will take both lines. The state has a booming economy with a very fast rate of population growth of 2.3 per cent per annum, compared with 1.5 per cent in the 1990s. That means increased demand for services. Our booming economy means that people can legitimately expect to receive a dividend from this tremendous period of economic growth. They are receiving a dividend from the government’s investment in services. That is how we deliver a dividend from our prosperity to the people of Western Australia. We do not take the line of the Leader of the Opposition that we should deliver the people of Western Australia less with less. We actually believe in providing services. We were elected to deliver services. At a time of prosperity and economic boom, we will deliver improved investments to services. Is it sustainable? Yes, it is. That is what having a surplus means and that is what having a AAA credit rating means. We have a AAA credit rating and we will keep it. At the end of this period of infrastructure investment, the state will still have a AAA credit rating, and that is the guarantee I give to the opposition: it is sustainable.
(1) With that history, how can the Western Australian community believe the Treasurer when he now predicts that he can restrict expenditure growth to 5.1 per cent, 3.6 per cent and 4.5 per cent in the forward estimates for this year’s budget? (2) Given the Treasurer’s proven inability to control government expenditure, what will be the average blow-out in project costs in the government’s $26 billion capital works budget that will drive the net debt-to-revenue ratio above the government’s self-imposed 47 per cent limit? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) It is interesting that, at the first parliamentary sitting since the delivery of the budget, we are debating the 2005-06 budget. Clearly, the opposition does not want to debate the 2009 budget, and I can understand why. It is because we are delivering a $26 billion capital works program and cutting stamp duty by 15 per cent, or nearly $3 000, on an average-priced home. I can understand why the opposition would prefer to debate the 2005-06 budget rather than this one. The opposition needs to get its line of argument straight. Today the opposition will move a matter of public interest that, in effect, calls for more government expenditure. The shadow Minister for Education and Training has called for more expenditure on teachers’ salaries, the shadow Minister for Health has called for more expenditure and the shadow Minister for Police always calls for more expenditure, but now the shadow Treasurer is arguing for lower expenses. Which line will the opposition take? Will it take the line of all the shadow ministers in the other portfolios, who have called for and will continue to call for additional expenditure, or will it take the line of the shadow Treasurer? Alternatively, will the opposition have its cake and eat it too and take both lines? I think they will take both lines. The state has a booming economy with a very fast rate of population growth of 2.3 per cent per annum, compared with 1.5 per cent in the 1990s. That means increased demand for services. Our booming economy means that people can legitimately expect to receive a dividend from this tremendous period of economic growth. They are receiving a dividend from the government’s investment in services. That is how we deliver a dividend from our prosperity to the people of Western Australia. We do not take the line of the Leader of the Opposition that we should deliver the people of Western Australia less with less. We actually believe in providing services. We were elected to deliver services. At a time of prosperity and economic boom, we will deliver improved investments to services. Is it sustainable? Yes, it is. That is what having a surplus means and that is what having a AAA credit rating means. We have a AAA credit rating and we will keep it. At the end of this period of infrastructure investment, the state will still have a AAA credit rating, and that is the guarantee I give to the opposition: it is sustainable.
(2) Given the Treasurer’s proven inability to control government expenditure, what will be the average blow-out in project costs in the government’s $26 billion capital works budget that will drive the net debt-to-revenue ratio above the government’s self-imposed 47 per cent limit? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) It is interesting that, at the first parliamentary sitting since the delivery of the budget, we are debating the 2005-06 budget. Clearly, the opposition does not want to debate the 2009 budget, and I can understand why. It is because we are delivering a $26 billion capital works program and cutting stamp duty by 15 per cent, or nearly $3 000, on an average-priced home. I can understand why the opposition would prefer to debate the 2005-06 budget rather than this one. The opposition needs to get its line of argument straight. Today the opposition will move a matter of public interest that, in effect, calls for more government expenditure. The shadow Minister for Education and Training has called for more expenditure on teachers’ salaries, the shadow Minister for Health has called for more expenditure and the shadow Minister for Police always calls for more expenditure, but now the shadow Treasurer is arguing for lower expenses. Which line will the opposition take? Will it take the line of all the shadow ministers in the other portfolios, who have called for and will continue to call for additional expenditure, or will it take the line of the shadow Treasurer? Alternatively, will the opposition have its cake and eat it too and take both lines? I think they will take both lines. The state has a booming economy with a very fast rate of population growth of 2.3 per cent per annum, compared with 1.5 per cent in the 1990s. That means increased demand for services. Our booming economy means that people can legitimately expect to receive a dividend from this tremendous period of economic growth. They are receiving a dividend from the government’s investment in services. That is how we deliver a dividend from our prosperity to the people of Western Australia. We do not take the line of the Leader of the Opposition that we should deliver the people of Western Australia less with less. We actually believe in providing services. We were elected to deliver services. At a time of prosperity and economic boom, we will deliver improved investments to services. Is it sustainable? Yes, it is. That is what having a surplus means and that is what having a AAA credit rating means. We have a AAA credit rating and we will keep it. At the end of this period of infrastructure investment, the state will still have a AAA credit rating, and that is the guarantee I give to the opposition: it is sustainable.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) It is interesting that, at the first parliamentary sitting since the delivery of the budget, we are debating the 2005-06 budget. Clearly, the opposition does not want to debate the 2009 budget, and I can understand why. It is because we are delivering a $26 billion capital works program and cutting stamp duty by 15 per cent, or nearly $3 000, on an average-priced home. I can understand why the opposition would prefer to debate the 2005-06 budget rather than this one. The opposition needs to get its line of argument straight. Today the opposition will move a matter of public interest that, in effect, calls for more government expenditure. The shadow Minister for Education and Training has called for more expenditure on teachers’ salaries, the shadow Minister for Health has called for more expenditure and the shadow Minister for Police always calls for more expenditure, but now the shadow Treasurer is arguing for lower expenses. Which line will the opposition take? Will it take the line of all the shadow ministers in the other portfolios, who have called for and will continue to call for additional expenditure, or will it take the line of the shadow Treasurer? Alternatively, will the opposition have its cake and eat it too and take both lines? I think they will take both lines. The state has a booming economy with a very fast rate of population growth of 2.3 per cent per annum, compared with 1.5 per cent in the 1990s. That means increased demand for services. Our booming economy means that people can legitimately expect to receive a dividend from this tremendous period of economic growth. They are receiving a dividend from the government’s investment in services. That is how we deliver a dividend from our prosperity to the people of Western Australia. We do not take the line of the Leader of the Opposition that we should deliver the people of Western Australia less with less. We actually believe in providing services. We were elected to deliver services. At a time of prosperity and economic boom, we will deliver improved investments to services. Is it sustainable? Yes, it is. That is what having a surplus means and that is what having a AAA credit rating means. We have a AAA credit rating and we will keep it. At the end of this period of infrastructure investment, the state will still have a AAA credit rating, and that is the guarantee I give to the opposition: it is sustainable.
(1)-(2) It is interesting that, at the first parliamentary sitting since the delivery of the budget, we are debating the 2005-06 budget. Clearly, the opposition does not want to debate the 2009 budget, and I can understand why. It is because we are delivering a $26 billion capital works program and cutting stamp duty by 15 per cent, or nearly $3 000, on an average-priced home. I can understand why the opposition would prefer to debate the 2005-06 budget rather than this one. The opposition needs to get its line of argument straight. Today the opposition will move a matter of public interest that, in effect, calls for more government expenditure. The shadow Minister for Education and Training has called for more expenditure on teachers’ salaries, the shadow Minister for Health has called for more expenditure and the shadow Minister for Police always calls for more expenditure, but now the shadow Treasurer is arguing for lower expenses. Which line will the opposition take? Will it take the line of all the shadow ministers in the other portfolios, who have called for and will continue to call for additional expenditure, or will it take the line of the shadow Treasurer? Alternatively, will the opposition have its cake and eat it too and take both lines? I think they will take both lines. The state has a booming economy with a very fast rate of population growth of 2.3 per cent per annum, compared with 1.5 per cent in the 1990s. That means increased demand for services. Our booming economy means that people can legitimately expect to receive a dividend from this tremendous period of economic growth. They are receiving a dividend from the government’s investment in services. That is how we deliver a dividend from our prosperity to the people of Western Australia. We do not take the line of the Leader of the Opposition that we should deliver the people of Western Australia less with less. We actually believe in providing services. We were elected to deliver services. At a time of prosperity and economic boom, we will deliver improved investments to services. Is it sustainable? Yes, it is. That is what having a surplus means and that is what having a AAA credit rating means. We have a AAA credit rating and we will keep it. At the end of this period of infrastructure investment, the state will still have a AAA credit rating, and that is the guarantee I give to the opposition: it is sustainable.
The state has a booming economy with a very fast rate of population growth of 2.3 per cent per annum, compared with 1.5 per cent in the 1990s. That means increased demand for services. Our booming economy means that people can legitimately expect to receive a dividend from this tremendous period of economic growth. They are receiving a dividend from the government’s investment in services. That is how we deliver a dividend from our prosperity to the people of Western Australia. We do not take the line of the Leader of the Opposition that we should deliver the people of Western Australia less with less. We actually believe in providing services. We were elected to deliver services. At a time of prosperity and economic boom, we will deliver improved investments to services. Is it sustainable? Yes, it is. That is what having a surplus means and that is what having a AAA credit rating means. We have a AAA credit rating and we will keep it. At the end of this period of infrastructure investment, the state will still have a AAA credit rating, and that is the guarantee I give to the opposition: it is sustainable.
(1) With that history, how can the Western Australian community believe the Treasurer when he now predicts that he can restrict expenditure growth to 5.1 per cent, 3.6 per cent and 4.5 per cent in the forward estimates for this year’s budget? (2) Given the Treasurer’s proven inability to control government expenditure, what will be the average blow-out in project costs in the government’s $26 billion capital works budget that will drive the net debt-to-revenue ratio above the government’s self-imposed 47 per cent limit? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) It is interesting that, at the first parliamentary sitting since the delivery of the budget, we are debating the 2005-06 budget. Clearly, the opposition does not want to debate the 2009 budget, and I can understand why. It is because we are delivering a $26 billion capital works program and cutting stamp duty by 15 per cent, or nearly $3 000, on an average-priced home. I can understand why the opposition would prefer to debate the 2005-06 budget rather than this one. The opposition needs to get its line of argument straight. Today the opposition will move a matter of public interest that, in effect, calls for more government expenditure. The shadow Minister for Education and Training has called for more expenditure on teachers’ salaries, the shadow Minister for Health has called for more expenditure and the shadow Minister for Police always calls for more expenditure, but now the shadow Treasurer is arguing for lower expenses. Which line will the opposition take? Will it take the line of all the shadow ministers in the other portfolios, who have called for and will continue to call for additional expenditure, or will it take the line of the shadow Treasurer? Alternatively, will the opposition have its cake and eat it too and take both lines? I think they will take both lines. The state has a booming economy with a very fast rate of population growth of 2.3 per cent per annum, compared with 1.5 per cent in the 1990s. That means increased demand for services. Our booming economy means that people can legitimately expect to receive a dividend from this tremendous period of economic growth. They are receiving a dividend from the government’s investment in services. That is how we deliver a dividend from our prosperity to the people of Western Australia. We do not take the line of the Leader of the Opposition that we should deliver the people of Western Australia less with less. We actually believe in providing services. We were elected to deliver services. At a time of prosperity and economic boom, we will deliver improved investments to services. Is it sustainable? Yes, it is. That is what having a surplus means and that is what having a AAA credit rating means. We have a AAA credit rating and we will keep it. At the end of this period of infrastructure investment, the state will still have a AAA credit rating, and that is the guarantee I give to the opposition: it is sustainable.
(2) Given the Treasurer’s proven inability to control government expenditure, what will be the average blow-out in project costs in the government’s $26 billion capital works budget that will drive the net debt-to-revenue ratio above the government’s self-imposed 47 per cent limit? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) It is interesting that, at the first parliamentary sitting since the delivery of the budget, we are debating the 2005-06 budget. Clearly, the opposition does not want to debate the 2009 budget, and I can understand why. It is because we are delivering a $26 billion capital works program and cutting stamp duty by 15 per cent, or nearly $3 000, on an average-priced home. I can understand why the opposition would prefer to debate the 2005-06 budget rather than this one. The opposition needs to get its line of argument straight. Today the opposition will move a matter of public interest that, in effect, calls for more government expenditure. The shadow Minister for Education and Training has called for more expenditure on teachers’ salaries, the shadow Minister for Health has called for more expenditure and the shadow Minister for Police always calls for more expenditure, but now the shadow Treasurer is arguing for lower expenses. Which line will the opposition take? Will it take the line of all the shadow ministers in the other portfolios, who have called for and will continue to call for additional expenditure, or will it take the line of the shadow Treasurer? Alternatively, will the opposition have its cake and eat it too and take both lines? I think they will take both lines. The state has a booming economy with a very fast rate of population growth of 2.3 per cent per annum, compared with 1.5 per cent in the 1990s. That means increased demand for services. Our booming economy means that people can legitimately expect to receive a dividend from this tremendous period of economic growth. They are receiving a dividend from the government’s investment in services. That is how we deliver a dividend from our prosperity to the people of Western Australia. We do not take the line of the Leader of the Opposition that we should deliver the people of Western Australia less with less. We actually believe in providing services. We were elected to deliver services. At a time of prosperity and economic boom, we will deliver improved investments to services. Is it sustainable? Yes, it is. That is what having a surplus means and that is what having a AAA credit rating means. We have a AAA credit rating and we will keep it. At the end of this period of infrastructure investment, the state will still have a AAA credit rating, and that is the guarantee I give to the opposition: it is sustainable.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) It is interesting that, at the first parliamentary sitting since the delivery of the budget, we are debating the 2005-06 budget. Clearly, the opposition does not want to debate the 2009 budget, and I can understand why. It is because we are delivering a $26 billion capital works program and cutting stamp duty by 15 per cent, or nearly $3 000, on an average-priced home. I can understand why the opposition would prefer to debate the 2005-06 budget rather than this one. The opposition needs to get its line of argument straight. Today the opposition will move a matter of public interest that, in effect, calls for more government expenditure. The shadow Minister for Education and Training has called for more expenditure on teachers’ salaries, the shadow Minister for Health has called for more expenditure and the shadow Minister for Police always calls for more expenditure, but now the shadow Treasurer is arguing for lower expenses. Which line will the opposition take? Will it take the line of all the shadow ministers in the other portfolios, who have called for and will continue to call for additional expenditure, or will it take the line of the shadow Treasurer? Alternatively, will the opposition have its cake and eat it too and take both lines? I think they will take both lines. The state has a booming economy with a very fast rate of population growth of 2.3 per cent per annum, compared with 1.5 per cent in the 1990s. That means increased demand for services. Our booming economy means that people can legitimately expect to receive a dividend from this tremendous period of economic growth. They are receiving a dividend from the government’s investment in services. That is how we deliver a dividend from our prosperity to the people of Western Australia. We do not take the line of the Leader of the Opposition that we should deliver the people of Western Australia less with less. We actually believe in providing services. We were elected to deliver services. At a time of prosperity and economic boom, we will deliver improved investments to services. Is it sustainable? Yes, it is. That is what having a surplus means and that is what having a AAA credit rating means. We have a AAA credit rating and we will keep it. At the end of this period of infrastructure investment, the state will still have a AAA credit rating, and that is the guarantee I give to the opposition: it is sustainable.
(1)-(2) It is interesting that, at the first parliamentary sitting since the delivery of the budget, we are debating the 2005-06 budget. Clearly, the opposition does not want to debate the 2009 budget, and I can understand why. It is because we are delivering a $26 billion capital works program and cutting stamp duty by 15 per cent, or nearly $3 000, on an average-priced home. I can understand why the opposition would prefer to debate the 2005-06 budget rather than this one. The opposition needs to get its line of argument straight. Today the opposition will move a matter of public interest that, in effect, calls for more government expenditure. The shadow Minister for Education and Training has called for more expenditure on teachers’ salaries, the shadow Minister for Health has called for more expenditure and the shadow Minister for Police always calls for more expenditure, but now the shadow Treasurer is arguing for lower expenses. Which line will the opposition take? Will it take the line of all the shadow ministers in the other portfolios, who have called for and will continue to call for additional expenditure, or will it take the line of the shadow Treasurer? Alternatively, will the opposition have its cake and eat it too and take both lines? I think they will take both lines. The state has a booming economy with a very fast rate of population growth of 2.3 per cent per annum, compared with 1.5 per cent in the 1990s. That means increased demand for services. Our booming economy means that people can legitimately expect to receive a dividend from this tremendous period of economic growth. They are receiving a dividend from the government’s investment in services. That is how we deliver a dividend from our prosperity to the people of Western Australia. We do not take the line of the Leader of the Opposition that we should deliver the people of Western Australia less with less. We actually believe in providing services. We were elected to deliver services. At a time of prosperity and economic boom, we will deliver improved investments to services. Is it sustainable? Yes, it is. That is what having a surplus means and that is what having a AAA credit rating means. We have a AAA credit rating and we will keep it. At the end of this period of infrastructure investment, the state will still have a AAA credit rating, and that is the guarantee I give to the opposition: it is sustainable.
The state has a booming economy with a very fast rate of population growth of 2.3 per cent per annum, compared with 1.5 per cent in the 1990s. That means increased demand for services. Our booming economy means that people can legitimately expect to receive a dividend from this tremendous period of economic growth. They are receiving a dividend from the government’s investment in services. That is how we deliver a dividend from our prosperity to the people of Western Australia. We do not take the line of the Leader of the Opposition that we should deliver the people of Western Australia less with less. We actually believe in providing services. We were elected to deliver services. At a time of prosperity and economic boom, we will deliver improved investments to services. Is it sustainable? Yes, it is. That is what having a surplus means and that is what having a AAA credit rating means. We have a AAA credit rating and we will keep it. At the end of this period of infrastructure investment, the state will still have a AAA credit rating, and that is the guarantee I give to the opposition: it is sustainable.
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.