❓ Opposition questions the government's debt management despite budget surpluses, referencing a prior commitment to debt reduction. The Treasurer defends the government's financial performance by contrasting it with the previous government's record.
AnsweredQoN 299Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
NET DEBT — 2023–24 STATE BUDGET
299. Ms L. METTAM to the Treasurer:
I refer to the 2023–24 state
budget, the debt reduction account and the 2017 commitment to repay debt slowly
and carefully. Since 2017, the budget has had $19 billion in surpluses, with
another $11 billion forecast. However, state debt is expected to climb to $35.9
billion in 2027.
(1) Has the government given up on
its debt reduction account?
(2) The $35.9 billion
is higher than the 2016–17 actual of $31.9 billion that the government
inherited from the former Barnett government. What is the government's
excuse this time?
(3) When will the
government make meaningful action to ensure, as it committed, that future
generations are not burdened with epic amounts of debt?
Several members
interjected.
The SPEAKER : Just before I give the Premier the call, we had
over half a dozen people all contributing their o pinion on the question.
That is not only not necessary, but also out of order. I would ask you to
desist from interrupting so that we can hear the questions as clearly as
possible.
299. Ms L. METTAM to the Treasurer:
I refer to the 2023–24 state
budget, the debt reduction account and the 2017 commitment to repay debt slowly
and carefully. Since 2017, the budget has had $19 billion in surpluses, with
another $11 billion forecast. However, state debt is expected to climb to $35.9
billion in 2027.
(1) Has the government given up on
its debt reduction account?
(2) The $35.9 billion
is higher than the 2016–17 actual of $31.9 billion that the government
inherited from the former Barnett government. What is the government's
excuse this time?
(3) When will the
government make meaningful action to ensure, as it committed, that future
generations are not burdened with epic amounts of debt?
Several members
interjected.
The SPEAKER : Just before I give the Premier the call, we had
over half a dozen people all contributing their o pinion on the question.
That is not only not necessary, but also out of order. I would ask you to
desist from interrupting so that we can hear the questions as clearly as
possible.
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(3) It
would be fair to say that I am pleased that the Liberal Party has finally asked
me a question. It would be fair to say also that financial management and debt
reduction is not the Liberal Party's strong suit. When members opposite
arrived in office in 2008—I realise I am now one of the few who was
around at that point in time—the
state's debt was $3.6 billion. The previous government had record
revenues because we had a mining boom much stronger than the recent one.
By the time members opposite left office in March
2017, the forward estimates had debt at $44 billion. It went from $3.6 billion
to $44 billion. I happen to have
found this chart here that sets out the way it was progressing. We can see how
debt was progressing from 2008 to the time that members opposite left
office, when it was in the mid-30s and progressing across the forward estimates
to the mid-40s. That was the position.
Premier Barnett said that there was
no way debt would ever go above $20 billion. He also said that there was no way
his government would ever deliver a deficit. That was his commitment to the
state. He also said that the forward estimates were rubbish. He was probably
right, because it would have gone higher than that because members opposite had
no control over their budget. They put no effort into it. There was none.
Members can go ask Treasury what it was like. It was a free-for-all. The
previous government had two budget processes—the Liberal budget process
and the National budget process—and no-one ever said no to anything.
That is what occurred. It did not ask the commonwealth for any money. It never
got any money out of the commonwealth for anything. Tasmania is getting money
out of the commonwealth for a stadium. Members opposite did not get any money
out of the commonwealth for a stadium. That is going well for Tasmania, I note! That is the situation. We arrived in
office, we reduced expenditure growth , with a whole range of difficult
things to deal with that, and we also got money out of the commonwealth for
many of our projects.
What
has occurred? Debt has gone down. In this year's budget, by 30 June,
debt will be at $27.9 billion. We are the only government in Australia
achieving that. Across the forward estimates, we put in conservative budgeting.
Members opposite might want to practise cautious budgeting one day. I will
explain it to members opposite. What we do is we put in a very cautious
estimate of our revenues. That way, there is upside
risk in the future. In the former government, there were Treasurers Buswell,
Porter, Barnett, Buswell , Nahan, Buswell, Barnett—there were
seven Treasurers in those eight years; I cannot quite remember the order, but
there were seven of them.
Ms R. Saffioti : That's
a good quiz night question.
Mr M. McGOWAN : Yes, it is a very
good quiz night question. Who was the only Treasurer three times? It was
Barnett. Who was there twice? It was Buswell. Who was there once? It was Nahan
and Porter.
During the term in office of members
opposite, they basically put in very high estimates of their government's
revenue, particularly its royalty revenue, and then spent accordingly. When
revenue started to decline, particularly royalties in about 2013, the budget
absolutely fell apart, and they lost the AAA credit rating. That occurred. That
is the forward estimates. Every year, our forward estimates have indicated an
increase in debt, and every year it has gone down because we actually budget
cautiously. It is a deliberate strategy to avoid what the former government did
when it was in office. That has put Western Australia in a position in which we
have regained the AAA credit rating, we have paid down debt once again and we
have surpluses across the forward estimates. We have now delivered six surpluses
and four years of paying down debt, and the Leader of the Liberal Party stands
up and asks questions about this. I do not know who does the strategy for
either of the opposition parties. We gave them
more staff than we had in opposition. I do not know what they do. I do not know
who does it for them. Although I am loath to say they should get rid of
staff because I support people keeping their jobs, I think they need to look at
who is doing it for them.
would be fair to say that I am pleased that the Liberal Party has finally asked
me a question. It would be fair to say also that financial management and debt
reduction is not the Liberal Party's strong suit. When members opposite
arrived in office in 2008—I realise I am now one of the few who was
around at that point in time—the
state's debt was $3.6 billion. The previous government had record
revenues because we had a mining boom much stronger than the recent one.
By the time members opposite left office in March
2017, the forward estimates had debt at $44 billion. It went from $3.6 billion
to $44 billion. I happen to have
found this chart here that sets out the way it was progressing. We can see how
debt was progressing from 2008 to the time that members opposite left
office, when it was in the mid-30s and progressing across the forward estimates
to the mid-40s. That was the position.
Premier Barnett said that there was
no way debt would ever go above $20 billion. He also said that there was no way
his government would ever deliver a deficit. That was his commitment to the
state. He also said that the forward estimates were rubbish. He was probably
right, because it would have gone higher than that because members opposite had
no control over their budget. They put no effort into it. There was none.
Members can go ask Treasury what it was like. It was a free-for-all. The
previous government had two budget processes—the Liberal budget process
and the National budget process—and no-one ever said no to anything.
That is what occurred. It did not ask the commonwealth for any money. It never
got any money out of the commonwealth for anything. Tasmania is getting money
out of the commonwealth for a stadium. Members opposite did not get any money
out of the commonwealth for a stadium. That is going well for Tasmania, I note! That is the situation. We arrived in
office, we reduced expenditure growth , with a whole range of difficult
things to deal with that, and we also got money out of the commonwealth for
many of our projects.
What
has occurred? Debt has gone down. In this year's budget, by 30 June,
debt will be at $27.9 billion. We are the only government in Australia
achieving that. Across the forward estimates, we put in conservative budgeting.
Members opposite might want to practise cautious budgeting one day. I will
explain it to members opposite. What we do is we put in a very cautious
estimate of our revenues. That way, there is upside
risk in the future. In the former government, there were Treasurers Buswell,
Porter, Barnett, Buswell , Nahan, Buswell, Barnett—there were
seven Treasurers in those eight years; I cannot quite remember the order, but
there were seven of them.
Ms R. Saffioti : That's
a good quiz night question.
Mr M. McGOWAN : Yes, it is a very
good quiz night question. Who was the only Treasurer three times? It was
Barnett. Who was there twice? It was Buswell. Who was there once? It was Nahan
and Porter.
During the term in office of members
opposite, they basically put in very high estimates of their government's
revenue, particularly its royalty revenue, and then spent accordingly. When
revenue started to decline, particularly royalties in about 2013, the budget
absolutely fell apart, and they lost the AAA credit rating. That occurred. That
is the forward estimates. Every year, our forward estimates have indicated an
increase in debt, and every year it has gone down because we actually budget
cautiously. It is a deliberate strategy to avoid what the former government did
when it was in office. That has put Western Australia in a position in which we
have regained the AAA credit rating, we have paid down debt once again and we
have surpluses across the forward estimates. We have now delivered six surpluses
and four years of paying down debt, and the Leader of the Liberal Party stands
up and asks questions about this. I do not know who does the strategy for
either of the opposition parties. We gave them
more staff than we had in opposition. I do not know what they do. I do not know
who does it for them. Although I am loath to say they should get rid of
staff because I support people keeping their jobs, I think they need to look at
who is doing it for them.
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.