❓ Mr Sutherland questions the Treasurer on government expenditure control as detailed in the 2010-11 Annual Report on State Finances. The Treasurer responds by outlining key policies implemented to restrain expenditure growth, including wages policy, FTE ceilings, and voluntary separations.
AnsweredQoN 617Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
2010–11 Annual Report on State Finances — GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE CONTROL
I refer to today’s release of the 2010–11 Annual Report on State Finances . Will the Treasurer please inform this house how this government has reined in expenditure through disciplined financial management? Mr C.C. PORTER
I refer to today’s release of the 2010–11 Annual Report on State Finances . Will the Treasurer please inform this house how this government has reined in expenditure through disciplined financial management? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. There is some very, very good news on the issue of expenses growth in the 2010–11 Annual Report on State Finances tabled today. Why is the issue so critical? It has been an issue that many members opposite have made some comment on. Indeed, I recall in the second reading speech responses to the budget some quite critical comments made by some members opposite about what this government had managed to do to restrain expenditure growth. The reason this matter is so critical is, I think, understood and agreed upon by everyone in the house; namely, revenue minus recurrent expenditure is in effect the surplus available to spend on infrastructure and other government programs and policy. The simple structural reality, which is a brutal one for any Treasurer, is that the higher the recurrent expenditure, the less money there is to spend on infrastructure. That fact is inescapable. In reference to higher recurrent expenditure, 40 per cent of recurrent expenditure is in effect the wages expenditure of government. This government did four key things. Whilst I am on my feet, I wanted to personally congratulate the Minister for Transport because these four things were policy instituted by the transport minister when he was the Treasurer, and they are now starting to bear fruit. Those four things were, firstly, a clear, unambiguous wages policy that was neither lead nor lag. No-one knows what that means! The State Solicitor’s Office cannot tell me what that means. Our wages policy has been, and has been very clear, that we will pay above the consumer price index to a capped limit of the wage price index, but that anything above CPI and necessarily below WPI has to be justified by productivity gains. The second thing that we have done is to reach an agreed upon measure between Treasury and the Public Sector Commissioner of how we count full-time employees and how we calculate yearly averages. We then placed a ceiling on the yearly average FTE across the entire public sector by agency and department. In 2010–11, the ceiling was 106 604 FTEs. The actual number for the average over the year was 105 383—that is 1 200-odd below the ceiling. We have also had three rounds of voluntary separations, with 802 voluntary separations in rounds 1 and 2, and we expect 400 voluntary separations in round 3. That embeds $57 million per annum worth of saving to the WA taxpayer in the budget. What has the result been as displayed in the report we released today? There are three measures. The first is the expense growth of general government; this is expense growth overall taking out the government trading enterprises. On this chart, members can see the figure is 5.2 per cent. There are not as many laughs opposite now. The average over 10 years was 8.1 per cent, and over the past financial year we have achieved 5.2 per cent. The second standard measure is own-purpose expenses and targets, which looks at taking out commonwealth money that comes in and goes out of the system. A target has been set—a target that was last met in, I think, 2001–02. The target is that our own-purpose expenses in government are not supposed to grow faster than the population and WPI. The idea is that the government should not be spending more each year than the increase in population and a reasonable increase in wages. From this chart members will see that in the last financial year the actual growth on this measure was 6.5 and the target was 6.2. That is unbelievably close to the target. People in Treasury were crying to have gone so close, but not quite get there. The last time that target was met was 2001–02 when the WA economy was in something of a doldrums compared to where it is now. That is a much easier target to meet when things are not steadily growing as they are now. That is a quite remarkable achievement. The third measure is salaries growth in general government. As I have already said, recurrent expenditure growth is fuelled by salaries growth. In the past two years, salaries growth has been 6.6 per cent. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. There is some very, very good news on the issue of expenses growth in the 2010–11 Annual Report on State Finances tabled today. Why is the issue so critical? It has been an issue that many members opposite have made some comment on. Indeed, I recall in the second reading speech responses to the budget some quite critical comments made by some members opposite about what this government had managed to do to restrain expenditure growth. The reason this matter is so critical is, I think, understood and agreed upon by everyone in the house; namely, revenue minus recurrent expenditure is in effect the surplus available to spend on infrastructure and other government programs and policy. The simple structural reality, which is a brutal one for any Treasurer, is that the higher the recurrent expenditure, the less money there is to spend on infrastructure. That fact is inescapable. In reference to higher recurrent expenditure, 40 per cent of recurrent expenditure is in effect the wages expenditure of government. This government did four key things. Whilst I am on my feet, I wanted to personally congratulate the Minister for Transport because these four things were policy instituted by the transport minister when he was the Treasurer, and they are now starting to bear fruit. Those four things were, firstly, a clear, unambiguous wages policy that was neither lead nor lag. No-one knows what that means! The State Solicitor’s Office cannot tell me what that means. Our wages policy has been, and has been very clear, that we will pay above the consumer price index to a capped limit of the wage price index, but that anything above CPI and necessarily below WPI has to be justified by productivity gains. The second thing that we have done is to reach an agreed upon measure between Treasury and the Public Sector Commissioner of how we count full-time employees and how we calculate yearly averages. We then placed a ceiling on the yearly average FTE across the entire public sector by agency and department. In 2010–11, the ceiling was 106 604 FTEs. The actual number for the average over the year was 105 383—that is 1 200-odd below the ceiling. We have also had three rounds of voluntary separations, with 802 voluntary separations in rounds 1 and 2, and we expect 400 voluntary separations in round 3. That embeds $57 million per annum worth of saving to the WA taxpayer in the budget. What has the result been as displayed in the report we released today? There are three measures. The first is the expense growth of general government; this is expense growth overall taking out the government trading enterprises. On this chart, members can see the figure is 5.2 per cent. There are not as many laughs opposite now. The average over 10 years was 8.1 per cent, and over the past financial year we have achieved 5.2 per cent. The second standard measure is own-purpose expenses and targets, which looks at taking out commonwealth money that comes in and goes out of the system. A target has been set—a target that was last met in, I think, 2001–02. The target is that our own-purpose expenses in government are not supposed to grow faster than the population and WPI. The idea is that the government should not be spending more each year than the increase in population and a reasonable increase in wages. From this chart members will see that in the last financial year the actual growth on this measure was 6.5 and the target was 6.2. That is unbelievably close to the target. People in Treasury were crying to have gone so close, but not quite get there. The last time that target was met was 2001–02 when the WA economy was in something of a doldrums compared to where it is now. That is a much easier target to meet when things are not steadily growing as they are now. That is a quite remarkable achievement. The third measure is salaries growth in general government. As I have already said, recurrent expenditure growth is fuelled by salaries growth. In the past two years, salaries growth has been 6.6 per cent. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
I thank the member for his question. There is some very, very good news on the issue of expenses growth in the 2010–11 Annual Report on State Finances tabled today. Why is the issue so critical? It has been an issue that many members opposite have made some comment on. Indeed, I recall in the second reading speech responses to the budget some quite critical comments made by some members opposite about what this government had managed to do to restrain expenditure growth. The reason this matter is so critical is, I think, understood and agreed upon by everyone in the house; namely, revenue minus recurrent expenditure is in effect the surplus available to spend on infrastructure and other government programs and policy. The simple structural reality, which is a brutal one for any Treasurer, is that the higher the recurrent expenditure, the less money there is to spend on infrastructure. That fact is inescapable. In reference to higher recurrent expenditure, 40 per cent of recurrent expenditure is in effect the wages expenditure of government. This government did four key things. Whilst I am on my feet, I wanted to personally congratulate the Minister for Transport because these four things were policy instituted by the transport minister when he was the Treasurer, and they are now starting to bear fruit. Those four things were, firstly, a clear, unambiguous wages policy that was neither lead nor lag. No-one knows what that means! The State Solicitor’s Office cannot tell me what that means. Our wages policy has been, and has been very clear, that we will pay above the consumer price index to a capped limit of the wage price index, but that anything above CPI and necessarily below WPI has to be justified by productivity gains. The second thing that we have done is to reach an agreed upon measure between Treasury and the Public Sector Commissioner of how we count full-time employees and how we calculate yearly averages. We then placed a ceiling on the yearly average FTE across the entire public sector by agency and department. In 2010–11, the ceiling was 106 604 FTEs. The actual number for the average over the year was 105 383—that is 1 200-odd below the ceiling. We have also had three rounds of voluntary separations, with 802 voluntary separations in rounds 1 and 2, and we expect 400 voluntary separations in round 3. That embeds $57 million per annum worth of saving to the WA taxpayer in the budget. What has the result been as displayed in the report we released today? There are three measures. The first is the expense growth of general government; this is expense growth overall taking out the government trading enterprises. On this chart, members can see the figure is 5.2 per cent. There are not as many laughs opposite now. The average over 10 years was 8.1 per cent, and over the past financial year we have achieved 5.2 per cent. The second standard measure is own-purpose expenses and targets, which looks at taking out commonwealth money that comes in and goes out of the system. A target has been set—a target that was last met in, I think, 2001–02. The target is that our own-purpose expenses in government are not supposed to grow faster than the population and WPI. The idea is that the government should not be spending more each year than the increase in population and a reasonable increase in wages. From this chart members will see that in the last financial year the actual growth on this measure was 6.5 and the target was 6.2. That is unbelievably close to the target. People in Treasury were crying to have gone so close, but not quite get there. The last time that target was met was 2001–02 when the WA economy was in something of a doldrums compared to where it is now. That is a much easier target to meet when things are not steadily growing as they are now. That is a quite remarkable achievement. The third measure is salaries growth in general government. As I have already said, recurrent expenditure growth is fuelled by salaries growth. In the past two years, salaries growth has been 6.6 per cent. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
There is some very, very good news on the issue of expenses growth in the 2010–11 Annual Report on State Finances tabled today. Why is the issue so critical? It has been an issue that many members opposite have made some comment on. Indeed, I recall in the second reading speech responses to the budget some quite critical comments made by some members opposite about what this government had managed to do to restrain expenditure growth. The reason this matter is so critical is, I think, understood and agreed upon by everyone in the house; namely, revenue minus recurrent expenditure is in effect the surplus available to spend on infrastructure and other government programs and policy. The simple structural reality, which is a brutal one for any Treasurer, is that the higher the recurrent expenditure, the less money there is to spend on infrastructure. That fact is inescapable. In reference to higher recurrent expenditure, 40 per cent of recurrent expenditure is in effect the wages expenditure of government. This government did four key things. Whilst I am on my feet, I wanted to personally congratulate the Minister for Transport because these four things were policy instituted by the transport minister when he was the Treasurer, and they are now starting to bear fruit. Those four things were, firstly, a clear, unambiguous wages policy that was neither lead nor lag. No-one knows what that means! The State Solicitor’s Office cannot tell me what that means. Our wages policy has been, and has been very clear, that we will pay above the consumer price index to a capped limit of the wage price index, but that anything above CPI and necessarily below WPI has to be justified by productivity gains. The second thing that we have done is to reach an agreed upon measure between Treasury and the Public Sector Commissioner of how we count full-time employees and how we calculate yearly averages. We then placed a ceiling on the yearly average FTE across the entire public sector by agency and department. In 2010–11, the ceiling was 106 604 FTEs. The actual number for the average over the year was 105 383—that is 1 200-odd below the ceiling. We have also had three rounds of voluntary separations, with 802 voluntary separations in rounds 1 and 2, and we expect 400 voluntary separations in round 3. That embeds $57 million per annum worth of saving to the WA taxpayer in the budget. What has the result been as displayed in the report we released today? There are three measures. The first is the expense growth of general government; this is expense growth overall taking out the government trading enterprises. On this chart, members can see the figure is 5.2 per cent. There are not as many laughs opposite now. The average over 10 years was 8.1 per cent, and over the past financial year we have achieved 5.2 per cent. The second standard measure is own-purpose expenses and targets, which looks at taking out commonwealth money that comes in and goes out of the system. A target has been set—a target that was last met in, I think, 2001–02. The target is that our own-purpose expenses in government are not supposed to grow faster than the population and WPI. The idea is that the government should not be spending more each year than the increase in population and a reasonable increase in wages. From this chart members will see that in the last financial year the actual growth on this measure was 6.5 and the target was 6.2. That is unbelievably close to the target. People in Treasury were crying to have gone so close, but not quite get there. The last time that target was met was 2001–02 when the WA economy was in something of a doldrums compared to where it is now. That is a much easier target to meet when things are not steadily growing as they are now. That is a quite remarkable achievement. The third measure is salaries growth in general government. As I have already said, recurrent expenditure growth is fuelled by salaries growth. In the past two years, salaries growth has been 6.6 per cent. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
This government did four key things. Whilst I am on my feet, I wanted to personally congratulate the Minister for Transport because these four things were policy instituted by the transport minister when he was the Treasurer, and they are now starting to bear fruit. Those four things were, firstly, a clear, unambiguous wages policy that was neither lead nor lag. No-one knows what that means! The State Solicitor’s Office cannot tell me what that means. Our wages policy has been, and has been very clear, that we will pay above the consumer price index to a capped limit of the wage price index, but that anything above CPI and necessarily below WPI has to be justified by productivity gains. The second thing that we have done is to reach an agreed upon measure between Treasury and the Public Sector Commissioner of how we count full-time employees and how we calculate yearly averages. We then placed a ceiling on the yearly average FTE across the entire public sector by agency and department. In 2010–11, the ceiling was 106 604 FTEs. The actual number for the average over the year was 105 383—that is 1 200-odd below the ceiling. We have also had three rounds of voluntary separations, with 802 voluntary separations in rounds 1 and 2, and we expect 400 voluntary separations in round 3. That embeds $57 million per annum worth of saving to the WA taxpayer in the budget. What has the result been as displayed in the report we released today? There are three measures. The first is the expense growth of general government; this is expense growth overall taking out the government trading enterprises. On this chart, members can see the figure is 5.2 per cent. There are not as many laughs opposite now. The average over 10 years was 8.1 per cent, and over the past financial year we have achieved 5.2 per cent. The second standard measure is own-purpose expenses and targets, which looks at taking out commonwealth money that comes in and goes out of the system. A target has been set—a target that was last met in, I think, 2001–02. The target is that our own-purpose expenses in government are not supposed to grow faster than the population and WPI. The idea is that the government should not be spending more each year than the increase in population and a reasonable increase in wages. From this chart members will see that in the last financial year the actual growth on this measure was 6.5 and the target was 6.2. That is unbelievably close to the target. People in Treasury were crying to have gone so close, but not quite get there. The last time that target was met was 2001–02 when the WA economy was in something of a doldrums compared to where it is now. That is a much easier target to meet when things are not steadily growing as they are now. That is a quite remarkable achievement. The third measure is salaries growth in general government. As I have already said, recurrent expenditure growth is fuelled by salaries growth. In the past two years, salaries growth has been 6.6 per cent. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
What has the result been as displayed in the report we released today? There are three measures. The first is the expense growth of general government; this is expense growth overall taking out the government trading enterprises. On this chart, members can see the figure is 5.2 per cent. There are not as many laughs opposite now. The average over 10 years was 8.1 per cent, and over the past financial year we have achieved 5.2 per cent. The second standard measure is own-purpose expenses and targets, which looks at taking out commonwealth money that comes in and goes out of the system. A target has been set—a target that was last met in, I think, 2001–02. The target is that our own-purpose expenses in government are not supposed to grow faster than the population and WPI. The idea is that the government should not be spending more each year than the increase in population and a reasonable increase in wages. From this chart members will see that in the last financial year the actual growth on this measure was 6.5 and the target was 6.2. That is unbelievably close to the target. People in Treasury were crying to have gone so close, but not quite get there. The last time that target was met was 2001–02 when the WA economy was in something of a doldrums compared to where it is now. That is a much easier target to meet when things are not steadily growing as they are now. That is a quite remarkable achievement. The third measure is salaries growth in general government. As I have already said, recurrent expenditure growth is fuelled by salaries growth. In the past two years, salaries growth has been 6.6 per cent. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
The second standard measure is own-purpose expenses and targets, which looks at taking out commonwealth money that comes in and goes out of the system. A target has been set—a target that was last met in, I think, 2001–02. The target is that our own-purpose expenses in government are not supposed to grow faster than the population and WPI. The idea is that the government should not be spending more each year than the increase in population and a reasonable increase in wages. From this chart members will see that in the last financial year the actual growth on this measure was 6.5 and the target was 6.2. That is unbelievably close to the target. People in Treasury were crying to have gone so close, but not quite get there. The last time that target was met was 2001–02 when the WA economy was in something of a doldrums compared to where it is now. That is a much easier target to meet when things are not steadily growing as they are now. That is a quite remarkable achievement. The third measure is salaries growth in general government. As I have already said, recurrent expenditure growth is fuelled by salaries growth. In the past two years, salaries growth has been 6.6 per cent. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
The third measure is salaries growth in general government. As I have already said, recurrent expenditure growth is fuelled by salaries growth. In the past two years, salaries growth has been 6.6 per cent. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. There is some very, very good news on the issue of expenses growth in the 2010–11 Annual Report on State Finances tabled today. Why is the issue so critical? It has been an issue that many members opposite have made some comment on. Indeed, I recall in the second reading speech responses to the budget some quite critical comments made by some members opposite about what this government had managed to do to restrain expenditure growth. The reason this matter is so critical is, I think, understood and agreed upon by everyone in the house; namely, revenue minus recurrent expenditure is in effect the surplus available to spend on infrastructure and other government programs and policy. The simple structural reality, which is a brutal one for any Treasurer, is that the higher the recurrent expenditure, the less money there is to spend on infrastructure. That fact is inescapable. In reference to higher recurrent expenditure, 40 per cent of recurrent expenditure is in effect the wages expenditure of government. This government did four key things. Whilst I am on my feet, I wanted to personally congratulate the Minister for Transport because these four things were policy instituted by the transport minister when he was the Treasurer, and they are now starting to bear fruit. Those four things were, firstly, a clear, unambiguous wages policy that was neither lead nor lag. No-one knows what that means! The State Solicitor’s Office cannot tell me what that means. Our wages policy has been, and has been very clear, that we will pay above the consumer price index to a capped limit of the wage price index, but that anything above CPI and necessarily below WPI has to be justified by productivity gains. The second thing that we have done is to reach an agreed upon measure between Treasury and the Public Sector Commissioner of how we count full-time employees and how we calculate yearly averages. We then placed a ceiling on the yearly average FTE across the entire public sector by agency and department. In 2010–11, the ceiling was 106 604 FTEs. The actual number for the average over the year was 105 383—that is 1 200-odd below the ceiling. We have also had three rounds of voluntary separations, with 802 voluntary separations in rounds 1 and 2, and we expect 400 voluntary separations in round 3. That embeds $57 million per annum worth of saving to the WA taxpayer in the budget. What has the result been as displayed in the report we released today? There are three measures. The first is the expense growth of general government; this is expense growth overall taking out the government trading enterprises. On this chart, members can see the figure is 5.2 per cent. There are not as many laughs opposite now. The average over 10 years was 8.1 per cent, and over the past financial year we have achieved 5.2 per cent. The second standard measure is own-purpose expenses and targets, which looks at taking out commonwealth money that comes in and goes out of the system. A target has been set—a target that was last met in, I think, 2001–02. The target is that our own-purpose expenses in government are not supposed to grow faster than the population and WPI. The idea is that the government should not be spending more each year than the increase in population and a reasonable increase in wages. From this chart members will see that in the last financial year the actual growth on this measure was 6.5 and the target was 6.2. That is unbelievably close to the target. People in Treasury were crying to have gone so close, but not quite get there. The last time that target was met was 2001–02 when the WA economy was in something of a doldrums compared to where it is now. That is a much easier target to meet when things are not steadily growing as they are now. That is a quite remarkable achievement. The third measure is salaries growth in general government. As I have already said, recurrent expenditure growth is fuelled by salaries growth. In the past two years, salaries growth has been 6.6 per cent. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
I thank the member for his question. There is some very, very good news on the issue of expenses growth in the 2010–11 Annual Report on State Finances tabled today. Why is the issue so critical? It has been an issue that many members opposite have made some comment on. Indeed, I recall in the second reading speech responses to the budget some quite critical comments made by some members opposite about what this government had managed to do to restrain expenditure growth. The reason this matter is so critical is, I think, understood and agreed upon by everyone in the house; namely, revenue minus recurrent expenditure is in effect the surplus available to spend on infrastructure and other government programs and policy. The simple structural reality, which is a brutal one for any Treasurer, is that the higher the recurrent expenditure, the less money there is to spend on infrastructure. That fact is inescapable. In reference to higher recurrent expenditure, 40 per cent of recurrent expenditure is in effect the wages expenditure of government. This government did four key things. Whilst I am on my feet, I wanted to personally congratulate the Minister for Transport because these four things were policy instituted by the transport minister when he was the Treasurer, and they are now starting to bear fruit. Those four things were, firstly, a clear, unambiguous wages policy that was neither lead nor lag. No-one knows what that means! The State Solicitor’s Office cannot tell me what that means. Our wages policy has been, and has been very clear, that we will pay above the consumer price index to a capped limit of the wage price index, but that anything above CPI and necessarily below WPI has to be justified by productivity gains. The second thing that we have done is to reach an agreed upon measure between Treasury and the Public Sector Commissioner of how we count full-time employees and how we calculate yearly averages. We then placed a ceiling on the yearly average FTE across the entire public sector by agency and department. In 2010–11, the ceiling was 106 604 FTEs. The actual number for the average over the year was 105 383—that is 1 200-odd below the ceiling. We have also had three rounds of voluntary separations, with 802 voluntary separations in rounds 1 and 2, and we expect 400 voluntary separations in round 3. That embeds $57 million per annum worth of saving to the WA taxpayer in the budget. What has the result been as displayed in the report we released today? There are three measures. The first is the expense growth of general government; this is expense growth overall taking out the government trading enterprises. On this chart, members can see the figure is 5.2 per cent. There are not as many laughs opposite now. The average over 10 years was 8.1 per cent, and over the past financial year we have achieved 5.2 per cent. The second standard measure is own-purpose expenses and targets, which looks at taking out commonwealth money that comes in and goes out of the system. A target has been set—a target that was last met in, I think, 2001–02. The target is that our own-purpose expenses in government are not supposed to grow faster than the population and WPI. The idea is that the government should not be spending more each year than the increase in population and a reasonable increase in wages. From this chart members will see that in the last financial year the actual growth on this measure was 6.5 and the target was 6.2. That is unbelievably close to the target. People in Treasury were crying to have gone so close, but not quite get there. The last time that target was met was 2001–02 when the WA economy was in something of a doldrums compared to where it is now. That is a much easier target to meet when things are not steadily growing as they are now. That is a quite remarkable achievement. The third measure is salaries growth in general government. As I have already said, recurrent expenditure growth is fuelled by salaries growth. In the past two years, salaries growth has been 6.6 per cent. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
There is some very, very good news on the issue of expenses growth in the 2010–11 Annual Report on State Finances tabled today. Why is the issue so critical? It has been an issue that many members opposite have made some comment on. Indeed, I recall in the second reading speech responses to the budget some quite critical comments made by some members opposite about what this government had managed to do to restrain expenditure growth. The reason this matter is so critical is, I think, understood and agreed upon by everyone in the house; namely, revenue minus recurrent expenditure is in effect the surplus available to spend on infrastructure and other government programs and policy. The simple structural reality, which is a brutal one for any Treasurer, is that the higher the recurrent expenditure, the less money there is to spend on infrastructure. That fact is inescapable. In reference to higher recurrent expenditure, 40 per cent of recurrent expenditure is in effect the wages expenditure of government. This government did four key things. Whilst I am on my feet, I wanted to personally congratulate the Minister for Transport because these four things were policy instituted by the transport minister when he was the Treasurer, and they are now starting to bear fruit. Those four things were, firstly, a clear, unambiguous wages policy that was neither lead nor lag. No-one knows what that means! The State Solicitor’s Office cannot tell me what that means. Our wages policy has been, and has been very clear, that we will pay above the consumer price index to a capped limit of the wage price index, but that anything above CPI and necessarily below WPI has to be justified by productivity gains. The second thing that we have done is to reach an agreed upon measure between Treasury and the Public Sector Commissioner of how we count full-time employees and how we calculate yearly averages. We then placed a ceiling on the yearly average FTE across the entire public sector by agency and department. In 2010–11, the ceiling was 106 604 FTEs. The actual number for the average over the year was 105 383—that is 1 200-odd below the ceiling. We have also had three rounds of voluntary separations, with 802 voluntary separations in rounds 1 and 2, and we expect 400 voluntary separations in round 3. That embeds $57 million per annum worth of saving to the WA taxpayer in the budget. What has the result been as displayed in the report we released today? There are three measures. The first is the expense growth of general government; this is expense growth overall taking out the government trading enterprises. On this chart, members can see the figure is 5.2 per cent. There are not as many laughs opposite now. The average over 10 years was 8.1 per cent, and over the past financial year we have achieved 5.2 per cent. The second standard measure is own-purpose expenses and targets, which looks at taking out commonwealth money that comes in and goes out of the system. A target has been set—a target that was last met in, I think, 2001–02. The target is that our own-purpose expenses in government are not supposed to grow faster than the population and WPI. The idea is that the government should not be spending more each year than the increase in population and a reasonable increase in wages. From this chart members will see that in the last financial year the actual growth on this measure was 6.5 and the target was 6.2. That is unbelievably close to the target. People in Treasury were crying to have gone so close, but not quite get there. The last time that target was met was 2001–02 when the WA economy was in something of a doldrums compared to where it is now. That is a much easier target to meet when things are not steadily growing as they are now. That is a quite remarkable achievement. The third measure is salaries growth in general government. As I have already said, recurrent expenditure growth is fuelled by salaries growth. In the past two years, salaries growth has been 6.6 per cent. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
This government did four key things. Whilst I am on my feet, I wanted to personally congratulate the Minister for Transport because these four things were policy instituted by the transport minister when he was the Treasurer, and they are now starting to bear fruit. Those four things were, firstly, a clear, unambiguous wages policy that was neither lead nor lag. No-one knows what that means! The State Solicitor’s Office cannot tell me what that means. Our wages policy has been, and has been very clear, that we will pay above the consumer price index to a capped limit of the wage price index, but that anything above CPI and necessarily below WPI has to be justified by productivity gains. The second thing that we have done is to reach an agreed upon measure between Treasury and the Public Sector Commissioner of how we count full-time employees and how we calculate yearly averages. We then placed a ceiling on the yearly average FTE across the entire public sector by agency and department. In 2010–11, the ceiling was 106 604 FTEs. The actual number for the average over the year was 105 383—that is 1 200-odd below the ceiling. We have also had three rounds of voluntary separations, with 802 voluntary separations in rounds 1 and 2, and we expect 400 voluntary separations in round 3. That embeds $57 million per annum worth of saving to the WA taxpayer in the budget. What has the result been as displayed in the report we released today? There are three measures. The first is the expense growth of general government; this is expense growth overall taking out the government trading enterprises. On this chart, members can see the figure is 5.2 per cent. There are not as many laughs opposite now. The average over 10 years was 8.1 per cent, and over the past financial year we have achieved 5.2 per cent. The second standard measure is own-purpose expenses and targets, which looks at taking out commonwealth money that comes in and goes out of the system. A target has been set—a target that was last met in, I think, 2001–02. The target is that our own-purpose expenses in government are not supposed to grow faster than the population and WPI. The idea is that the government should not be spending more each year than the increase in population and a reasonable increase in wages. From this chart members will see that in the last financial year the actual growth on this measure was 6.5 and the target was 6.2. That is unbelievably close to the target. People in Treasury were crying to have gone so close, but not quite get there. The last time that target was met was 2001–02 when the WA economy was in something of a doldrums compared to where it is now. That is a much easier target to meet when things are not steadily growing as they are now. That is a quite remarkable achievement. The third measure is salaries growth in general government. As I have already said, recurrent expenditure growth is fuelled by salaries growth. In the past two years, salaries growth has been 6.6 per cent. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
What has the result been as displayed in the report we released today? There are three measures. The first is the expense growth of general government; this is expense growth overall taking out the government trading enterprises. On this chart, members can see the figure is 5.2 per cent. There are not as many laughs opposite now. The average over 10 years was 8.1 per cent, and over the past financial year we have achieved 5.2 per cent. The second standard measure is own-purpose expenses and targets, which looks at taking out commonwealth money that comes in and goes out of the system. A target has been set—a target that was last met in, I think, 2001–02. The target is that our own-purpose expenses in government are not supposed to grow faster than the population and WPI. The idea is that the government should not be spending more each year than the increase in population and a reasonable increase in wages. From this chart members will see that in the last financial year the actual growth on this measure was 6.5 and the target was 6.2. That is unbelievably close to the target. People in Treasury were crying to have gone so close, but not quite get there. The last time that target was met was 2001–02 when the WA economy was in something of a doldrums compared to where it is now. That is a much easier target to meet when things are not steadily growing as they are now. That is a quite remarkable achievement. The third measure is salaries growth in general government. As I have already said, recurrent expenditure growth is fuelled by salaries growth. In the past two years, salaries growth has been 6.6 per cent. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
The second standard measure is own-purpose expenses and targets, which looks at taking out commonwealth money that comes in and goes out of the system. A target has been set—a target that was last met in, I think, 2001–02. The target is that our own-purpose expenses in government are not supposed to grow faster than the population and WPI. The idea is that the government should not be spending more each year than the increase in population and a reasonable increase in wages. From this chart members will see that in the last financial year the actual growth on this measure was 6.5 and the target was 6.2. That is unbelievably close to the target. People in Treasury were crying to have gone so close, but not quite get there. The last time that target was met was 2001–02 when the WA economy was in something of a doldrums compared to where it is now. That is a much easier target to meet when things are not steadily growing as they are now. That is a quite remarkable achievement. The third measure is salaries growth in general government. As I have already said, recurrent expenditure growth is fuelled by salaries growth. In the past two years, salaries growth has been 6.6 per cent. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
The third measure is salaries growth in general government. As I have already said, recurrent expenditure growth is fuelled by salaries growth. In the past two years, salaries growth has been 6.6 per cent. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
Mr C.C. PORTER : Is it that every time members opposite do not like something, they just shout out the word “pensioners” randomly—and that is an argument? Is that how it works? What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
What that shows and why that is very good news — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Member for Joondalup, I know that you would like to ask a question and I look forward to giving you the call—if I have that opportunity. That is my advice to you at the moment. Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
Mr C.C. PORTER : This shows that there were two very bad years in 2007–08 and 2008–09. We had some shared responsibility for 2008–09, but 2007–08 was all the responsibility of members opposite. In 2007–08, there was about an 11.6 per cent growth in public sector wages. Based on that level of growth, Labor would have doubled the state’s wages bill every eight and a half years. I can tell members that the population of WA is not doubling every eight and a half years. That would have been absolutely unsustainable for the state. One of the most important things that has come out of these results and one of the most important things that this government can do for the taxpayers of Western Australia is to ensure that the wages bill of the state does not double every eight and a half years. These are, therefore, some very good results today. We had a few laughs at the beginning from the opposition, but not too many at the end!
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.