❓ A parliamentary question regarding the WA government's decision to increase the waste levy to encourage recycling, focusing on the Treasurer's justification and financial implications within the budget. Includes a point of order questioning the Treasurer's responsibility to answer.
AnsweredQoN 534Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WASTE LEVY
I note the resistance towards the Liberal-National government’s move to increase the waste levy to encourage a higher rate of recycling. Will the Treasurer please inform the house of the government’s objectives as per the budget with this green initiative? Mr T.R. BUSWELL
I note the resistance towards the Liberal-National government’s move to increase the waste levy to encourage a higher rate of recycling. Will the Treasurer please inform the house of the government’s objectives as per the budget with this green initiative? Mr T.R. BUSWELL
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for that question, he being a member who has a history in local government and also one who represents a metropolitan constituency. As the house will be aware, the government made a policy decision during the budget process to raise the metropolitan landfill levy. The amount of increase was not insignificant at 300 per cent. That has caused some people in the community to comment, not so much the opposition but predominantly the Western Australian Local Government Association, and in particular its president, Mr Mitchell. I will talk a little about that later on. I will work through some of the technical aspects of what we have proposed, because suggestions have been raised that it is illegal or inappropriate. I will outline what the government is doing to introduce that policy decision. First, I think it is important to understand what will happen to the charges. The charges for inert waste, which is charged on a per cubic metre basis, will be increased from $3 to $12 per cubic metre, and for putrescible waste, from $7 a tonne to $28 a tonne. That is a significant increase, but let us look at it in the context of the size of these levies around Australia. For example, the New South Wales charge is $46.70 per tonne, and in South Australia it is $24.20 per tonne. Western Australia has an issue with its low levels of recycling rates. The policy decision is an attempt in part to address that. I understand that there are other issues, in particular market-related issues, that impact on the recycling industry. This is an important initiative. I will give an example. Construction and demolition waste is about 50 per cent by volume of the state’s landfill. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : Standing order 75 indicates that questions may be asked of a minister regarding matters under the minister’s administrative responsibility. The waste levy comes under the Minister for Environment’s responsibility. Accordingly, it is not the Treasurer’s portfolio. It is not for the Treasurer to answer questions relating to the Minister for Environment’s portfolio, which is clearly what this question relates to. If the question is to be asked, it should be asked of the minister representing the Minister for Environment or indeed asked of the Minister for Environment in the upper house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The question asked was a financial question in relation to the portfolio the Treasurer holds, and as such — Mr M. McGowan : Was it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is quite clearly shown in the budget papers as such. Therefore, I suggest that the Treasurer, the minister for finance, is the person in this house who should answer any of those particular financial questions. It is very relevant to the Treasurer. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Assignment of ministerial responsibilities is based on formal responsibility for particular pieces of legislation. If the legislation is not given to the Treasurer for his administration, he is not the minister responsible. The SPEAKER : Members, it is my decision that I will ask the Treasurer to continue to answer this question with respect to the budget papers that he was responsible for putting together, and I ask the Treasurer in doing so to be very specific and also fairly efficient in his use of time. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr T.R. BUSWELL : As I was referring to, in the budget papers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: I thank the member for that question, he being a member who has a history in local government and also one who represents a metropolitan constituency. As the house will be aware, the government made a policy decision during the budget process to raise the metropolitan landfill levy. The amount of increase was not insignificant at 300 per cent. That has caused some people in the community to comment, not so much the opposition but predominantly the Western Australian Local Government Association, and in particular its president, Mr Mitchell. I will talk a little about that later on. I will work through some of the technical aspects of what we have proposed, because suggestions have been raised that it is illegal or inappropriate. I will outline what the government is doing to introduce that policy decision. First, I think it is important to understand what will happen to the charges. The charges for inert waste, which is charged on a per cubic metre basis, will be increased from $3 to $12 per cubic metre, and for putrescible waste, from $7 a tonne to $28 a tonne. That is a significant increase, but let us look at it in the context of the size of these levies around Australia. For example, the New South Wales charge is $46.70 per tonne, and in South Australia it is $24.20 per tonne. Western Australia has an issue with its low levels of recycling rates. The policy decision is an attempt in part to address that. I understand that there are other issues, in particular market-related issues, that impact on the recycling industry. This is an important initiative. I will give an example. Construction and demolition waste is about 50 per cent by volume of the state’s landfill. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : Standing order 75 indicates that questions may be asked of a minister regarding matters under the minister’s administrative responsibility. The waste levy comes under the Minister for Environment’s responsibility. Accordingly, it is not the Treasurer’s portfolio. It is not for the Treasurer to answer questions relating to the Minister for Environment’s portfolio, which is clearly what this question relates to. If the question is to be asked, it should be asked of the minister representing the Minister for Environment or indeed asked of the Minister for Environment in the upper house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The question asked was a financial question in relation to the portfolio the Treasurer holds, and as such — Mr M. McGowan : Was it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is quite clearly shown in the budget papers as such. Therefore, I suggest that the Treasurer, the minister for finance, is the person in this house who should answer any of those particular financial questions. It is very relevant to the Treasurer. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Assignment of ministerial responsibilities is based on formal responsibility for particular pieces of legislation. If the legislation is not given to the Treasurer for his administration, he is not the minister responsible. The SPEAKER : Members, it is my decision that I will ask the Treasurer to continue to answer this question with respect to the budget papers that he was responsible for putting together, and I ask the Treasurer in doing so to be very specific and also fairly efficient in his use of time. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr T.R. BUSWELL : As I was referring to, in the budget papers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
I thank the member for that question, he being a member who has a history in local government and also one who represents a metropolitan constituency. As the house will be aware, the government made a policy decision during the budget process to raise the metropolitan landfill levy. The amount of increase was not insignificant at 300 per cent. That has caused some people in the community to comment, not so much the opposition but predominantly the Western Australian Local Government Association, and in particular its president, Mr Mitchell. I will talk a little about that later on. I will work through some of the technical aspects of what we have proposed, because suggestions have been raised that it is illegal or inappropriate. I will outline what the government is doing to introduce that policy decision. First, I think it is important to understand what will happen to the charges. The charges for inert waste, which is charged on a per cubic metre basis, will be increased from $3 to $12 per cubic metre, and for putrescible waste, from $7 a tonne to $28 a tonne. That is a significant increase, but let us look at it in the context of the size of these levies around Australia. For example, the New South Wales charge is $46.70 per tonne, and in South Australia it is $24.20 per tonne. Western Australia has an issue with its low levels of recycling rates. The policy decision is an attempt in part to address that. I understand that there are other issues, in particular market-related issues, that impact on the recycling industry. This is an important initiative. I will give an example. Construction and demolition waste is about 50 per cent by volume of the state’s landfill. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : Standing order 75 indicates that questions may be asked of a minister regarding matters under the minister’s administrative responsibility. The waste levy comes under the Minister for Environment’s responsibility. Accordingly, it is not the Treasurer’s portfolio. It is not for the Treasurer to answer questions relating to the Minister for Environment’s portfolio, which is clearly what this question relates to. If the question is to be asked, it should be asked of the minister representing the Minister for Environment or indeed asked of the Minister for Environment in the upper house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The question asked was a financial question in relation to the portfolio the Treasurer holds, and as such — Mr M. McGowan : Was it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is quite clearly shown in the budget papers as such. Therefore, I suggest that the Treasurer, the minister for finance, is the person in this house who should answer any of those particular financial questions. It is very relevant to the Treasurer. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Assignment of ministerial responsibilities is based on formal responsibility for particular pieces of legislation. If the legislation is not given to the Treasurer for his administration, he is not the minister responsible. The SPEAKER : Members, it is my decision that I will ask the Treasurer to continue to answer this question with respect to the budget papers that he was responsible for putting together, and I ask the Treasurer in doing so to be very specific and also fairly efficient in his use of time. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr T.R. BUSWELL : As I was referring to, in the budget papers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The question asked was a financial question in relation to the portfolio the Treasurer holds, and as such — Mr M. McGowan : Was it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is quite clearly shown in the budget papers as such. Therefore, I suggest that the Treasurer, the minister for finance, is the person in this house who should answer any of those particular financial questions. It is very relevant to the Treasurer. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Assignment of ministerial responsibilities is based on formal responsibility for particular pieces of legislation. If the legislation is not given to the Treasurer for his administration, he is not the minister responsible. The SPEAKER : Members, it is my decision that I will ask the Treasurer to continue to answer this question with respect to the budget papers that he was responsible for putting together, and I ask the Treasurer in doing so to be very specific and also fairly efficient in his use of time. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr T.R. BUSWELL : As I was referring to, in the budget papers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Mr M. McGowan : Was it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is quite clearly shown in the budget papers as such. Therefore, I suggest that the Treasurer, the minister for finance, is the person in this house who should answer any of those particular financial questions. It is very relevant to the Treasurer. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Assignment of ministerial responsibilities is based on formal responsibility for particular pieces of legislation. If the legislation is not given to the Treasurer for his administration, he is not the minister responsible. The SPEAKER : Members, it is my decision that I will ask the Treasurer to continue to answer this question with respect to the budget papers that he was responsible for putting together, and I ask the Treasurer in doing so to be very specific and also fairly efficient in his use of time. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr T.R. BUSWELL : As I was referring to, in the budget papers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is quite clearly shown in the budget papers as such. Therefore, I suggest that the Treasurer, the minister for finance, is the person in this house who should answer any of those particular financial questions. It is very relevant to the Treasurer. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Assignment of ministerial responsibilities is based on formal responsibility for particular pieces of legislation. If the legislation is not given to the Treasurer for his administration, he is not the minister responsible. The SPEAKER : Members, it is my decision that I will ask the Treasurer to continue to answer this question with respect to the budget papers that he was responsible for putting together, and I ask the Treasurer in doing so to be very specific and also fairly efficient in his use of time. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr T.R. BUSWELL : As I was referring to, in the budget papers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Assignment of ministerial responsibilities is based on formal responsibility for particular pieces of legislation. If the legislation is not given to the Treasurer for his administration, he is not the minister responsible. The SPEAKER : Members, it is my decision that I will ask the Treasurer to continue to answer this question with respect to the budget papers that he was responsible for putting together, and I ask the Treasurer in doing so to be very specific and also fairly efficient in his use of time. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr T.R. BUSWELL : As I was referring to, in the budget papers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
The SPEAKER : Members, it is my decision that I will ask the Treasurer to continue to answer this question with respect to the budget papers that he was responsible for putting together, and I ask the Treasurer in doing so to be very specific and also fairly efficient in his use of time. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr T.R. BUSWELL : As I was referring to, in the budget papers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: I thank the member for that question, he being a member who has a history in local government and also one who represents a metropolitan constituency. As the house will be aware, the government made a policy decision during the budget process to raise the metropolitan landfill levy. The amount of increase was not insignificant at 300 per cent. That has caused some people in the community to comment, not so much the opposition but predominantly the Western Australian Local Government Association, and in particular its president, Mr Mitchell. I will talk a little about that later on. I will work through some of the technical aspects of what we have proposed, because suggestions have been raised that it is illegal or inappropriate. I will outline what the government is doing to introduce that policy decision. First, I think it is important to understand what will happen to the charges. The charges for inert waste, which is charged on a per cubic metre basis, will be increased from $3 to $12 per cubic metre, and for putrescible waste, from $7 a tonne to $28 a tonne. That is a significant increase, but let us look at it in the context of the size of these levies around Australia. For example, the New South Wales charge is $46.70 per tonne, and in South Australia it is $24.20 per tonne. Western Australia has an issue with its low levels of recycling rates. The policy decision is an attempt in part to address that. I understand that there are other issues, in particular market-related issues, that impact on the recycling industry. This is an important initiative. I will give an example. Construction and demolition waste is about 50 per cent by volume of the state’s landfill. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : Standing order 75 indicates that questions may be asked of a minister regarding matters under the minister’s administrative responsibility. The waste levy comes under the Minister for Environment’s responsibility. Accordingly, it is not the Treasurer’s portfolio. It is not for the Treasurer to answer questions relating to the Minister for Environment’s portfolio, which is clearly what this question relates to. If the question is to be asked, it should be asked of the minister representing the Minister for Environment or indeed asked of the Minister for Environment in the upper house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The question asked was a financial question in relation to the portfolio the Treasurer holds, and as such — Mr M. McGowan : Was it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is quite clearly shown in the budget papers as such. Therefore, I suggest that the Treasurer, the minister for finance, is the person in this house who should answer any of those particular financial questions. It is very relevant to the Treasurer. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Assignment of ministerial responsibilities is based on formal responsibility for particular pieces of legislation. If the legislation is not given to the Treasurer for his administration, he is not the minister responsible. The SPEAKER : Members, it is my decision that I will ask the Treasurer to continue to answer this question with respect to the budget papers that he was responsible for putting together, and I ask the Treasurer in doing so to be very specific and also fairly efficient in his use of time. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr T.R. BUSWELL : As I was referring to, in the budget papers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
I thank the member for that question, he being a member who has a history in local government and also one who represents a metropolitan constituency. As the house will be aware, the government made a policy decision during the budget process to raise the metropolitan landfill levy. The amount of increase was not insignificant at 300 per cent. That has caused some people in the community to comment, not so much the opposition but predominantly the Western Australian Local Government Association, and in particular its president, Mr Mitchell. I will talk a little about that later on. I will work through some of the technical aspects of what we have proposed, because suggestions have been raised that it is illegal or inappropriate. I will outline what the government is doing to introduce that policy decision. First, I think it is important to understand what will happen to the charges. The charges for inert waste, which is charged on a per cubic metre basis, will be increased from $3 to $12 per cubic metre, and for putrescible waste, from $7 a tonne to $28 a tonne. That is a significant increase, but let us look at it in the context of the size of these levies around Australia. For example, the New South Wales charge is $46.70 per tonne, and in South Australia it is $24.20 per tonne. Western Australia has an issue with its low levels of recycling rates. The policy decision is an attempt in part to address that. I understand that there are other issues, in particular market-related issues, that impact on the recycling industry. This is an important initiative. I will give an example. Construction and demolition waste is about 50 per cent by volume of the state’s landfill. Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : Standing order 75 indicates that questions may be asked of a minister regarding matters under the minister’s administrative responsibility. The waste levy comes under the Minister for Environment’s responsibility. Accordingly, it is not the Treasurer’s portfolio. It is not for the Treasurer to answer questions relating to the Minister for Environment’s portfolio, which is clearly what this question relates to. If the question is to be asked, it should be asked of the minister representing the Minister for Environment or indeed asked of the Minister for Environment in the upper house. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The question asked was a financial question in relation to the portfolio the Treasurer holds, and as such — Mr M. McGowan : Was it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is quite clearly shown in the budget papers as such. Therefore, I suggest that the Treasurer, the minister for finance, is the person in this house who should answer any of those particular financial questions. It is very relevant to the Treasurer. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Assignment of ministerial responsibilities is based on formal responsibility for particular pieces of legislation. If the legislation is not given to the Treasurer for his administration, he is not the minister responsible. The SPEAKER : Members, it is my decision that I will ask the Treasurer to continue to answer this question with respect to the budget papers that he was responsible for putting together, and I ask the Treasurer in doing so to be very specific and also fairly efficient in his use of time. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr T.R. BUSWELL : As I was referring to, in the budget papers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : The question asked was a financial question in relation to the portfolio the Treasurer holds, and as such — Mr M. McGowan : Was it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is quite clearly shown in the budget papers as such. Therefore, I suggest that the Treasurer, the minister for finance, is the person in this house who should answer any of those particular financial questions. It is very relevant to the Treasurer. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Assignment of ministerial responsibilities is based on formal responsibility for particular pieces of legislation. If the legislation is not given to the Treasurer for his administration, he is not the minister responsible. The SPEAKER : Members, it is my decision that I will ask the Treasurer to continue to answer this question with respect to the budget papers that he was responsible for putting together, and I ask the Treasurer in doing so to be very specific and also fairly efficient in his use of time. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr T.R. BUSWELL : As I was referring to, in the budget papers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Mr M. McGowan : Was it? Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is quite clearly shown in the budget papers as such. Therefore, I suggest that the Treasurer, the minister for finance, is the person in this house who should answer any of those particular financial questions. It is very relevant to the Treasurer. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Assignment of ministerial responsibilities is based on formal responsibility for particular pieces of legislation. If the legislation is not given to the Treasurer for his administration, he is not the minister responsible. The SPEAKER : Members, it is my decision that I will ask the Treasurer to continue to answer this question with respect to the budget papers that he was responsible for putting together, and I ask the Treasurer in doing so to be very specific and also fairly efficient in his use of time. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr T.R. BUSWELL : As I was referring to, in the budget papers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is quite clearly shown in the budget papers as such. Therefore, I suggest that the Treasurer, the minister for finance, is the person in this house who should answer any of those particular financial questions. It is very relevant to the Treasurer. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Assignment of ministerial responsibilities is based on formal responsibility for particular pieces of legislation. If the legislation is not given to the Treasurer for his administration, he is not the minister responsible. The SPEAKER : Members, it is my decision that I will ask the Treasurer to continue to answer this question with respect to the budget papers that he was responsible for putting together, and I ask the Treasurer in doing so to be very specific and also fairly efficient in his use of time. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr T.R. BUSWELL : As I was referring to, in the budget papers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Assignment of ministerial responsibilities is based on formal responsibility for particular pieces of legislation. If the legislation is not given to the Treasurer for his administration, he is not the minister responsible. The SPEAKER : Members, it is my decision that I will ask the Treasurer to continue to answer this question with respect to the budget papers that he was responsible for putting together, and I ask the Treasurer in doing so to be very specific and also fairly efficient in his use of time. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr T.R. BUSWELL : As I was referring to, in the budget papers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
The SPEAKER : Members, it is my decision that I will ask the Treasurer to continue to answer this question with respect to the budget papers that he was responsible for putting together, and I ask the Treasurer in doing so to be very specific and also fairly efficient in his use of time. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr T.R. BUSWELL : As I was referring to, in the budget papers — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : The fact is that it is a good policy decision because it will encourage recycling and it may create some more money for the Department of Environment and Conservation to enable it to do the things that we all want DEC to do, such as improve some of its outputs. To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
To implement the changes contained in the budget—an important part of the budget—we will change regulations. In due course we will bring to the house some changes to legislation that sit around collection of levy and waste avoidance. However, I want to touch on some of the comments made by Mr Mitchell, the president of the Western Australian Local Government Association, who is offended by the government’s policy decision. He has been much more vocal on this matter than have people on the other side of Parliament. He is very vocal! He is offended because we did not consult him over cabinet deliberations. That is just how it works sometimes, unfortunately for Mr Mitchell. This is one reason that I am interested in this matter as Treasurer. Mr Mitchell has implied that he needs to go on one of these Gandhi-esque civil disobedience campaigns and not collect the money. My message to Mr Mitchell is that he better collect the money, because in due course we will come to the local governments that are responsible for collecting the money and get the levy back. Therefore, if he does not collect the money, he is potentially creating a liability for his ratepayers. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I also say this to Mr Mitchell: he needs to look at his own house and make sure it is in order. Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Mr E.S. Ripper : I am glad the Treasurer is answering this. Can we extend his time? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am happy to, because this is the same body that encouraged Western Australian local governments, for example, to invest through the Grange financial group, and as a consequence millions of dollars of Western Australian ratepayers’ money have been lost because of bad investments in the United States. Mr Mitchell is the same person who wrote to me and asked us to please not let local governments access the state government’s common-use agreement for the purchase of advertising. That is what he said—make local governments use WALGA’s common-use agreement. Do members know what? We analysed that, and it would mean that local governments could pay up to 20 per cent more for advertising, but, importantly for WALGA, give WALGA about $1.5 million of extra income for the year. My advice to Mr Mitchell and to WALGA is to be careful in how they choose to engage the government as we attempt to tackle serious public policy issues in Western Australia. We are not afraid to tackle those issues and we will. The waste levy is an example of that.
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.