❓ Barnett questions the Treasurer about the Under Treasurer's concerns regarding government capital spending and the funding of the southern rail link. The Treasurer defends the government's financial strategy and criticises the opposition's record and proposed policies.
AnsweredQoN 327Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Treasurer to comments made by the Under Treasurer, John Langoulant, in The Australian today warning the Government on its current unsustainable level of capital spending. (1) Does the Treasurer agree with his Under Treasurer that government spending on infrastructure must be funded increasingly by current revenue rather than - I quote the Under Treasurer - “Just by using debt?” (2) Will the Treasurer now accept that funding around 80 per cent of the total cost of Labor’s $1.6 billion southern rail link by debt - around $2 300 for every Western Australian family - is reckless in the extreme? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
As an aside, before I deal with the main part of the question, I want to know why the Opposition is anti-Mandurah and anti-rail. Everything said by opposition members is aimed at putting the project and the town of Mandurah down. I would like that question answered in due course. (1)-(2) I will deal with the finance issues. Statements such as those made by the Under Treasurer are music to my ears, and I support his making those statements. They are a timely reminder of the challenges we as a State face in meeting our infrastructure needs. We want to meet the needs of health, education, law and order and infrastructure, not only this year but also next year and the year after, on a sustainable basis. When we do our budget planning we look ahead, because we believe in forward planning in a budget sense. We do not take the attitude that the Leader of the Opposition takes that forward estimates do not mean anything. We plan for true sustainable finances that will meet the infrastructure demands of a developing State, pay for increased community services, minimise the tax burden on household and businesses, ensure that we have flexibility to respond to unforeseen challenges in the years ahead, and guard against Peter Costello’s erosion of the State’s financial position. There will always be unforeseen events, and we must have a robust surplus to deal with those events. For example, this year we have had the drought and the impact of the Bali tragedy on our health system - they are just two examples of the unforeseen pressures we have had to face - but we have a responsible financial management strategy. Our AAA rating has been confirmed, we have had a healthy surplus in our first budget, we are curbing expense growth in the public sector, but our financial discipline does not end there. We have established a functional review committee to review spending by government agencies, and that committee will report to the Government with further savings options by the end of the year. We must continue to be vigilant. I will quote one remark made by the Under Treasurer, because the Leader of the Opposition apparently did not want to quote it. The article continues - He said the state’s financial framework was stable for the first time in several years. However, there was a need to remain ever-vigilant. We are being open about the finances and the choices that confront the State, unlike the previous coalition that delivered five deficits out of eight, including those three red lines indicated on this chart that I am holding up. Those opposite did not even admit to the public of Western Australia that they had deficits. In order to fund their infrastructure, they privatised. They certainly could not fund their infrastructure by means of surpluses, because they did not have the surpluses to do that. We have a different strategy. We will not privatise to fund infrastructure, but we will run operating surpluses on day-to-day expenses to provide a source of funding for the capital works programs. The Opposition has not learnt. On 2 September this year the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage went on ABC radio and said - . . . the Opposition intends to offer farmers compensation payments totalling up to $100 million . . . That was for land clearing. I think the Leader of the Opposition is the shadow Treasurer. Is that an official election promise? Does he endorse it as the shadow Treasurer? How will he pay for that $100 million promise? No answer! Now we know how we should react when we hear a shadow minister say something - it is not worth the paper it is written on because shadow ministers do not get the endorsement of the shadow Treasurer before they go out making announcements. They do not know whether that is an official election promise - they do not know how they will fund that promise - because they do not have a financial management plan to put to Western Australians, and they are still in the same position they were in when the Under Treasurer wrote to the Treasurer back in 1998. He said this about the previous Government - Individual Ministers attempting to capture the budget process by seeking in-principle approval for significant expenditure programs before the annual budget process begins and often before the current budget has passed through the Parliament. Who did he cite? The shadow Treasurer. He continued - A classic example is the current proposal by the Minister for Education to expand the Local Area Education Planning initiative, the same Minister’s proposal on regional power . . . It was not just anyone; it was the person who is now the shadow Treasurer for the Opposition. They are behaving like undischarged bankrupts.
(1) Does the Treasurer agree with his Under Treasurer that government spending on infrastructure must be funded increasingly by current revenue rather than - I quote the Under Treasurer - “Just by using debt?” (2) Will the Treasurer now accept that funding around 80 per cent of the total cost of Labor’s $1.6 billion southern rail link by debt - around $2 300 for every Western Australian family - is reckless in the extreme? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: As an aside, before I deal with the main part of the question, I want to know why the Opposition is anti-Mandurah and anti-rail. Everything said by opposition members is aimed at putting the project and the town of Mandurah down. I would like that question answered in due course. (1)-(2) I will deal with the finance issues. Statements such as those made by the Under Treasurer are music to my ears, and I support his making those statements. They are a timely reminder of the challenges we as a State face in meeting our infrastructure needs. We want to meet the needs of health, education, law and order and infrastructure, not only this year but also next year and the year after, on a sustainable basis. When we do our budget planning we look ahead, because we believe in forward planning in a budget sense. We do not take the attitude that the Leader of the Opposition takes that forward estimates do not mean anything. We plan for true sustainable finances that will meet the infrastructure demands of a developing State, pay for increased community services, minimise the tax burden on household and businesses, ensure that we have flexibility to respond to unforeseen challenges in the years ahead, and guard against Peter Costello’s erosion of the State’s financial position. There will always be unforeseen events, and we must have a robust surplus to deal with those events. For example, this year we have had the drought and the impact of the Bali tragedy on our health system - they are just two examples of the unforeseen pressures we have had to face - but we have a responsible financial management strategy. Our AAA rating has been confirmed, we have had a healthy surplus in our first budget, we are curbing expense growth in the public sector, but our financial discipline does not end there. We have established a functional review committee to review spending by government agencies, and that committee will report to the Government with further savings options by the end of the year. We must continue to be vigilant. I will quote one remark made by the Under Treasurer, because the Leader of the Opposition apparently did not want to quote it. The article continues - He said the state’s financial framework was stable for the first time in several years. However, there was a need to remain ever-vigilant. We are being open about the finances and the choices that confront the State, unlike the previous coalition that delivered five deficits out of eight, including those three red lines indicated on this chart that I am holding up. Those opposite did not even admit to the public of Western Australia that they had deficits. In order to fund their infrastructure, they privatised. They certainly could not fund their infrastructure by means of surpluses, because they did not have the surpluses to do that. We have a different strategy. We will not privatise to fund infrastructure, but we will run operating surpluses on day-to-day expenses to provide a source of funding for the capital works programs. The Opposition has not learnt. On 2 September this year the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage went on ABC radio and said - . . . the Opposition intends to offer farmers compensation payments totalling up to $100 million . . . That was for land clearing. I think the Leader of the Opposition is the shadow Treasurer. Is that an official election promise? Does he endorse it as the shadow Treasurer? How will he pay for that $100 million promise? No answer! Now we know how we should react when we hear a shadow minister say something - it is not worth the paper it is written on because shadow ministers do not get the endorsement of the shadow Treasurer before they go out making announcements. They do not know whether that is an official election promise - they do not know how they will fund that promise - because they do not have a financial management plan to put to Western Australians, and they are still in the same position they were in when the Under Treasurer wrote to the Treasurer back in 1998. He said this about the previous Government - Individual Ministers attempting to capture the budget process by seeking in-principle approval for significant expenditure programs before the annual budget process begins and often before the current budget has passed through the Parliament. Who did he cite? The shadow Treasurer. He continued - A classic example is the current proposal by the Minister for Education to expand the Local Area Education Planning initiative, the same Minister’s proposal on regional power . . . It was not just anyone; it was the person who is now the shadow Treasurer for the Opposition. They are behaving like undischarged bankrupts.
(2) Will the Treasurer now accept that funding around 80 per cent of the total cost of Labor’s $1.6 billion southern rail link by debt - around $2 300 for every Western Australian family - is reckless in the extreme? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: As an aside, before I deal with the main part of the question, I want to know why the Opposition is anti-Mandurah and anti-rail. Everything said by opposition members is aimed at putting the project and the town of Mandurah down. I would like that question answered in due course. (1)-(2) I will deal with the finance issues. Statements such as those made by the Under Treasurer are music to my ears, and I support his making those statements. They are a timely reminder of the challenges we as a State face in meeting our infrastructure needs. We want to meet the needs of health, education, law and order and infrastructure, not only this year but also next year and the year after, on a sustainable basis. When we do our budget planning we look ahead, because we believe in forward planning in a budget sense. We do not take the attitude that the Leader of the Opposition takes that forward estimates do not mean anything. We plan for true sustainable finances that will meet the infrastructure demands of a developing State, pay for increased community services, minimise the tax burden on household and businesses, ensure that we have flexibility to respond to unforeseen challenges in the years ahead, and guard against Peter Costello’s erosion of the State’s financial position. There will always be unforeseen events, and we must have a robust surplus to deal with those events. For example, this year we have had the drought and the impact of the Bali tragedy on our health system - they are just two examples of the unforeseen pressures we have had to face - but we have a responsible financial management strategy. Our AAA rating has been confirmed, we have had a healthy surplus in our first budget, we are curbing expense growth in the public sector, but our financial discipline does not end there. We have established a functional review committee to review spending by government agencies, and that committee will report to the Government with further savings options by the end of the year. We must continue to be vigilant. I will quote one remark made by the Under Treasurer, because the Leader of the Opposition apparently did not want to quote it. The article continues - He said the state’s financial framework was stable for the first time in several years. However, there was a need to remain ever-vigilant. We are being open about the finances and the choices that confront the State, unlike the previous coalition that delivered five deficits out of eight, including those three red lines indicated on this chart that I am holding up. Those opposite did not even admit to the public of Western Australia that they had deficits. In order to fund their infrastructure, they privatised. They certainly could not fund their infrastructure by means of surpluses, because they did not have the surpluses to do that. We have a different strategy. We will not privatise to fund infrastructure, but we will run operating surpluses on day-to-day expenses to provide a source of funding for the capital works programs. The Opposition has not learnt. On 2 September this year the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage went on ABC radio and said - . . . the Opposition intends to offer farmers compensation payments totalling up to $100 million . . . That was for land clearing. I think the Leader of the Opposition is the shadow Treasurer. Is that an official election promise? Does he endorse it as the shadow Treasurer? How will he pay for that $100 million promise? No answer! Now we know how we should react when we hear a shadow minister say something - it is not worth the paper it is written on because shadow ministers do not get the endorsement of the shadow Treasurer before they go out making announcements. They do not know whether that is an official election promise - they do not know how they will fund that promise - because they do not have a financial management plan to put to Western Australians, and they are still in the same position they were in when the Under Treasurer wrote to the Treasurer back in 1998. He said this about the previous Government - Individual Ministers attempting to capture the budget process by seeking in-principle approval for significant expenditure programs before the annual budget process begins and often before the current budget has passed through the Parliament. Who did he cite? The shadow Treasurer. He continued - A classic example is the current proposal by the Minister for Education to expand the Local Area Education Planning initiative, the same Minister’s proposal on regional power . . . It was not just anyone; it was the person who is now the shadow Treasurer for the Opposition. They are behaving like undischarged bankrupts.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: As an aside, before I deal with the main part of the question, I want to know why the Opposition is anti-Mandurah and anti-rail. Everything said by opposition members is aimed at putting the project and the town of Mandurah down. I would like that question answered in due course. (1)-(2) I will deal with the finance issues. Statements such as those made by the Under Treasurer are music to my ears, and I support his making those statements. They are a timely reminder of the challenges we as a State face in meeting our infrastructure needs. We want to meet the needs of health, education, law and order and infrastructure, not only this year but also next year and the year after, on a sustainable basis. When we do our budget planning we look ahead, because we believe in forward planning in a budget sense. We do not take the attitude that the Leader of the Opposition takes that forward estimates do not mean anything. We plan for true sustainable finances that will meet the infrastructure demands of a developing State, pay for increased community services, minimise the tax burden on household and businesses, ensure that we have flexibility to respond to unforeseen challenges in the years ahead, and guard against Peter Costello’s erosion of the State’s financial position. There will always be unforeseen events, and we must have a robust surplus to deal with those events. For example, this year we have had the drought and the impact of the Bali tragedy on our health system - they are just two examples of the unforeseen pressures we have had to face - but we have a responsible financial management strategy. Our AAA rating has been confirmed, we have had a healthy surplus in our first budget, we are curbing expense growth in the public sector, but our financial discipline does not end there. We have established a functional review committee to review spending by government agencies, and that committee will report to the Government with further savings options by the end of the year. We must continue to be vigilant. I will quote one remark made by the Under Treasurer, because the Leader of the Opposition apparently did not want to quote it. The article continues - He said the state’s financial framework was stable for the first time in several years. However, there was a need to remain ever-vigilant. We are being open about the finances and the choices that confront the State, unlike the previous coalition that delivered five deficits out of eight, including those three red lines indicated on this chart that I am holding up. Those opposite did not even admit to the public of Western Australia that they had deficits. In order to fund their infrastructure, they privatised. They certainly could not fund their infrastructure by means of surpluses, because they did not have the surpluses to do that. We have a different strategy. We will not privatise to fund infrastructure, but we will run operating surpluses on day-to-day expenses to provide a source of funding for the capital works programs. The Opposition has not learnt. On 2 September this year the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage went on ABC radio and said - . . . the Opposition intends to offer farmers compensation payments totalling up to $100 million . . . That was for land clearing. I think the Leader of the Opposition is the shadow Treasurer. Is that an official election promise? Does he endorse it as the shadow Treasurer? How will he pay for that $100 million promise? No answer! Now we know how we should react when we hear a shadow minister say something - it is not worth the paper it is written on because shadow ministers do not get the endorsement of the shadow Treasurer before they go out making announcements. They do not know whether that is an official election promise - they do not know how they will fund that promise - because they do not have a financial management plan to put to Western Australians, and they are still in the same position they were in when the Under Treasurer wrote to the Treasurer back in 1998. He said this about the previous Government - Individual Ministers attempting to capture the budget process by seeking in-principle approval for significant expenditure programs before the annual budget process begins and often before the current budget has passed through the Parliament. Who did he cite? The shadow Treasurer. He continued - A classic example is the current proposal by the Minister for Education to expand the Local Area Education Planning initiative, the same Minister’s proposal on regional power . . . It was not just anyone; it was the person who is now the shadow Treasurer for the Opposition. They are behaving like undischarged bankrupts.
As an aside, before I deal with the main part of the question, I want to know why the Opposition is anti-Mandurah and anti-rail. Everything said by opposition members is aimed at putting the project and the town of Mandurah down. I would like that question answered in due course. (1)-(2) I will deal with the finance issues. Statements such as those made by the Under Treasurer are music to my ears, and I support his making those statements. They are a timely reminder of the challenges we as a State face in meeting our infrastructure needs. We want to meet the needs of health, education, law and order and infrastructure, not only this year but also next year and the year after, on a sustainable basis. When we do our budget planning we look ahead, because we believe in forward planning in a budget sense. We do not take the attitude that the Leader of the Opposition takes that forward estimates do not mean anything. We plan for true sustainable finances that will meet the infrastructure demands of a developing State, pay for increased community services, minimise the tax burden on household and businesses, ensure that we have flexibility to respond to unforeseen challenges in the years ahead, and guard against Peter Costello’s erosion of the State’s financial position. There will always be unforeseen events, and we must have a robust surplus to deal with those events. For example, this year we have had the drought and the impact of the Bali tragedy on our health system - they are just two examples of the unforeseen pressures we have had to face - but we have a responsible financial management strategy. Our AAA rating has been confirmed, we have had a healthy surplus in our first budget, we are curbing expense growth in the public sector, but our financial discipline does not end there. We have established a functional review committee to review spending by government agencies, and that committee will report to the Government with further savings options by the end of the year. We must continue to be vigilant. I will quote one remark made by the Under Treasurer, because the Leader of the Opposition apparently did not want to quote it. The article continues - He said the state’s financial framework was stable for the first time in several years. However, there was a need to remain ever-vigilant. We are being open about the finances and the choices that confront the State, unlike the previous coalition that delivered five deficits out of eight, including those three red lines indicated on this chart that I am holding up. Those opposite did not even admit to the public of Western Australia that they had deficits. In order to fund their infrastructure, they privatised. They certainly could not fund their infrastructure by means of surpluses, because they did not have the surpluses to do that. We have a different strategy. We will not privatise to fund infrastructure, but we will run operating surpluses on day-to-day expenses to provide a source of funding for the capital works programs. The Opposition has not learnt. On 2 September this year the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage went on ABC radio and said - . . . the Opposition intends to offer farmers compensation payments totalling up to $100 million . . . That was for land clearing. I think the Leader of the Opposition is the shadow Treasurer. Is that an official election promise? Does he endorse it as the shadow Treasurer? How will he pay for that $100 million promise? No answer! Now we know how we should react when we hear a shadow minister say something - it is not worth the paper it is written on because shadow ministers do not get the endorsement of the shadow Treasurer before they go out making announcements. They do not know whether that is an official election promise - they do not know how they will fund that promise - because they do not have a financial management plan to put to Western Australians, and they are still in the same position they were in when the Under Treasurer wrote to the Treasurer back in 1998. He said this about the previous Government - Individual Ministers attempting to capture the budget process by seeking in-principle approval for significant expenditure programs before the annual budget process begins and often before the current budget has passed through the Parliament. Who did he cite? The shadow Treasurer. He continued - A classic example is the current proposal by the Minister for Education to expand the Local Area Education Planning initiative, the same Minister’s proposal on regional power . . . It was not just anyone; it was the person who is now the shadow Treasurer for the Opposition. They are behaving like undischarged bankrupts.
(1)-(2) I will deal with the finance issues. Statements such as those made by the Under Treasurer are music to my ears, and I support his making those statements. They are a timely reminder of the challenges we as a State face in meeting our infrastructure needs. We want to meet the needs of health, education, law and order and infrastructure, not only this year but also next year and the year after, on a sustainable basis. When we do our budget planning we look ahead, because we believe in forward planning in a budget sense. We do not take the attitude that the Leader of the Opposition takes that forward estimates do not mean anything. We plan for true sustainable finances that will meet the infrastructure demands of a developing State, pay for increased community services, minimise the tax burden on household and businesses, ensure that we have flexibility to respond to unforeseen challenges in the years ahead, and guard against Peter Costello’s erosion of the State’s financial position. There will always be unforeseen events, and we must have a robust surplus to deal with those events. For example, this year we have had the drought and the impact of the Bali tragedy on our health system - they are just two examples of the unforeseen pressures we have had to face - but we have a responsible financial management strategy. Our AAA rating has been confirmed, we have had a healthy surplus in our first budget, we are curbing expense growth in the public sector, but our financial discipline does not end there. We have established a functional review committee to review spending by government agencies, and that committee will report to the Government with further savings options by the end of the year. We must continue to be vigilant. I will quote one remark made by the Under Treasurer, because the Leader of the Opposition apparently did not want to quote it. The article continues - He said the state’s financial framework was stable for the first time in several years. However, there was a need to remain ever-vigilant. We are being open about the finances and the choices that confront the State, unlike the previous coalition that delivered five deficits out of eight, including those three red lines indicated on this chart that I am holding up. Those opposite did not even admit to the public of Western Australia that they had deficits. In order to fund their infrastructure, they privatised. They certainly could not fund their infrastructure by means of surpluses, because they did not have the surpluses to do that. We have a different strategy. We will not privatise to fund infrastructure, but we will run operating surpluses on day-to-day expenses to provide a source of funding for the capital works programs. The Opposition has not learnt. On 2 September this year the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage went on ABC radio and said - . . . the Opposition intends to offer farmers compensation payments totalling up to $100 million . . . That was for land clearing. I think the Leader of the Opposition is the shadow Treasurer. Is that an official election promise? Does he endorse it as the shadow Treasurer? How will he pay for that $100 million promise? No answer! Now we know how we should react when we hear a shadow minister say something - it is not worth the paper it is written on because shadow ministers do not get the endorsement of the shadow Treasurer before they go out making announcements. They do not know whether that is an official election promise - they do not know how they will fund that promise - because they do not have a financial management plan to put to Western Australians, and they are still in the same position they were in when the Under Treasurer wrote to the Treasurer back in 1998. He said this about the previous Government - Individual Ministers attempting to capture the budget process by seeking in-principle approval for significant expenditure programs before the annual budget process begins and often before the current budget has passed through the Parliament. Who did he cite? The shadow Treasurer. He continued - A classic example is the current proposal by the Minister for Education to expand the Local Area Education Planning initiative, the same Minister’s proposal on regional power . . . It was not just anyone; it was the person who is now the shadow Treasurer for the Opposition. They are behaving like undischarged bankrupts.
The Opposition has not learnt. On 2 September this year the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage went on ABC radio and said - . . . the Opposition intends to offer farmers compensation payments totalling up to $100 million . . . That was for land clearing. I think the Leader of the Opposition is the shadow Treasurer. Is that an official election promise? Does he endorse it as the shadow Treasurer? How will he pay for that $100 million promise? No answer! Now we know how we should react when we hear a shadow minister say something - it is not worth the paper it is written on because shadow ministers do not get the endorsement of the shadow Treasurer before they go out making announcements. They do not know whether that is an official election promise - they do not know how they will fund that promise - because they do not have a financial management plan to put to Western Australians, and they are still in the same position they were in when the Under Treasurer wrote to the Treasurer back in 1998. He said this about the previous Government - Individual Ministers attempting to capture the budget process by seeking in-principle approval for significant expenditure programs before the annual budget process begins and often before the current budget has passed through the Parliament. Who did he cite? The shadow Treasurer. He continued - A classic example is the current proposal by the Minister for Education to expand the Local Area Education Planning initiative, the same Minister’s proposal on regional power . . . It was not just anyone; it was the person who is now the shadow Treasurer for the Opposition. They are behaving like undischarged bankrupts.
(1) Does the Treasurer agree with his Under Treasurer that government spending on infrastructure must be funded increasingly by current revenue rather than - I quote the Under Treasurer - “Just by using debt?” (2) Will the Treasurer now accept that funding around 80 per cent of the total cost of Labor’s $1.6 billion southern rail link by debt - around $2 300 for every Western Australian family - is reckless in the extreme? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: As an aside, before I deal with the main part of the question, I want to know why the Opposition is anti-Mandurah and anti-rail. Everything said by opposition members is aimed at putting the project and the town of Mandurah down. I would like that question answered in due course. (1)-(2) I will deal with the finance issues. Statements such as those made by the Under Treasurer are music to my ears, and I support his making those statements. They are a timely reminder of the challenges we as a State face in meeting our infrastructure needs. We want to meet the needs of health, education, law and order and infrastructure, not only this year but also next year and the year after, on a sustainable basis. When we do our budget planning we look ahead, because we believe in forward planning in a budget sense. We do not take the attitude that the Leader of the Opposition takes that forward estimates do not mean anything. We plan for true sustainable finances that will meet the infrastructure demands of a developing State, pay for increased community services, minimise the tax burden on household and businesses, ensure that we have flexibility to respond to unforeseen challenges in the years ahead, and guard against Peter Costello’s erosion of the State’s financial position. There will always be unforeseen events, and we must have a robust surplus to deal with those events. For example, this year we have had the drought and the impact of the Bali tragedy on our health system - they are just two examples of the unforeseen pressures we have had to face - but we have a responsible financial management strategy. Our AAA rating has been confirmed, we have had a healthy surplus in our first budget, we are curbing expense growth in the public sector, but our financial discipline does not end there. We have established a functional review committee to review spending by government agencies, and that committee will report to the Government with further savings options by the end of the year. We must continue to be vigilant. I will quote one remark made by the Under Treasurer, because the Leader of the Opposition apparently did not want to quote it. The article continues - He said the state’s financial framework was stable for the first time in several years. However, there was a need to remain ever-vigilant. We are being open about the finances and the choices that confront the State, unlike the previous coalition that delivered five deficits out of eight, including those three red lines indicated on this chart that I am holding up. Those opposite did not even admit to the public of Western Australia that they had deficits. In order to fund their infrastructure, they privatised. They certainly could not fund their infrastructure by means of surpluses, because they did not have the surpluses to do that. We have a different strategy. We will not privatise to fund infrastructure, but we will run operating surpluses on day-to-day expenses to provide a source of funding for the capital works programs. The Opposition has not learnt. On 2 September this year the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage went on ABC radio and said - . . . the Opposition intends to offer farmers compensation payments totalling up to $100 million . . . That was for land clearing. I think the Leader of the Opposition is the shadow Treasurer. Is that an official election promise? Does he endorse it as the shadow Treasurer? How will he pay for that $100 million promise? No answer! Now we know how we should react when we hear a shadow minister say something - it is not worth the paper it is written on because shadow ministers do not get the endorsement of the shadow Treasurer before they go out making announcements. They do not know whether that is an official election promise - they do not know how they will fund that promise - because they do not have a financial management plan to put to Western Australians, and they are still in the same position they were in when the Under Treasurer wrote to the Treasurer back in 1998. He said this about the previous Government - Individual Ministers attempting to capture the budget process by seeking in-principle approval for significant expenditure programs before the annual budget process begins and often before the current budget has passed through the Parliament. Who did he cite? The shadow Treasurer. He continued - A classic example is the current proposal by the Minister for Education to expand the Local Area Education Planning initiative, the same Minister’s proposal on regional power . . . It was not just anyone; it was the person who is now the shadow Treasurer for the Opposition. They are behaving like undischarged bankrupts.
(2) Will the Treasurer now accept that funding around 80 per cent of the total cost of Labor’s $1.6 billion southern rail link by debt - around $2 300 for every Western Australian family - is reckless in the extreme? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: As an aside, before I deal with the main part of the question, I want to know why the Opposition is anti-Mandurah and anti-rail. Everything said by opposition members is aimed at putting the project and the town of Mandurah down. I would like that question answered in due course. (1)-(2) I will deal with the finance issues. Statements such as those made by the Under Treasurer are music to my ears, and I support his making those statements. They are a timely reminder of the challenges we as a State face in meeting our infrastructure needs. We want to meet the needs of health, education, law and order and infrastructure, not only this year but also next year and the year after, on a sustainable basis. When we do our budget planning we look ahead, because we believe in forward planning in a budget sense. We do not take the attitude that the Leader of the Opposition takes that forward estimates do not mean anything. We plan for true sustainable finances that will meet the infrastructure demands of a developing State, pay for increased community services, minimise the tax burden on household and businesses, ensure that we have flexibility to respond to unforeseen challenges in the years ahead, and guard against Peter Costello’s erosion of the State’s financial position. There will always be unforeseen events, and we must have a robust surplus to deal with those events. For example, this year we have had the drought and the impact of the Bali tragedy on our health system - they are just two examples of the unforeseen pressures we have had to face - but we have a responsible financial management strategy. Our AAA rating has been confirmed, we have had a healthy surplus in our first budget, we are curbing expense growth in the public sector, but our financial discipline does not end there. We have established a functional review committee to review spending by government agencies, and that committee will report to the Government with further savings options by the end of the year. We must continue to be vigilant. I will quote one remark made by the Under Treasurer, because the Leader of the Opposition apparently did not want to quote it. The article continues - He said the state’s financial framework was stable for the first time in several years. However, there was a need to remain ever-vigilant. We are being open about the finances and the choices that confront the State, unlike the previous coalition that delivered five deficits out of eight, including those three red lines indicated on this chart that I am holding up. Those opposite did not even admit to the public of Western Australia that they had deficits. In order to fund their infrastructure, they privatised. They certainly could not fund their infrastructure by means of surpluses, because they did not have the surpluses to do that. We have a different strategy. We will not privatise to fund infrastructure, but we will run operating surpluses on day-to-day expenses to provide a source of funding for the capital works programs. The Opposition has not learnt. On 2 September this year the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage went on ABC radio and said - . . . the Opposition intends to offer farmers compensation payments totalling up to $100 million . . . That was for land clearing. I think the Leader of the Opposition is the shadow Treasurer. Is that an official election promise? Does he endorse it as the shadow Treasurer? How will he pay for that $100 million promise? No answer! Now we know how we should react when we hear a shadow minister say something - it is not worth the paper it is written on because shadow ministers do not get the endorsement of the shadow Treasurer before they go out making announcements. They do not know whether that is an official election promise - they do not know how they will fund that promise - because they do not have a financial management plan to put to Western Australians, and they are still in the same position they were in when the Under Treasurer wrote to the Treasurer back in 1998. He said this about the previous Government - Individual Ministers attempting to capture the budget process by seeking in-principle approval for significant expenditure programs before the annual budget process begins and often before the current budget has passed through the Parliament. Who did he cite? The shadow Treasurer. He continued - A classic example is the current proposal by the Minister for Education to expand the Local Area Education Planning initiative, the same Minister’s proposal on regional power . . . It was not just anyone; it was the person who is now the shadow Treasurer for the Opposition. They are behaving like undischarged bankrupts.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: As an aside, before I deal with the main part of the question, I want to know why the Opposition is anti-Mandurah and anti-rail. Everything said by opposition members is aimed at putting the project and the town of Mandurah down. I would like that question answered in due course. (1)-(2) I will deal with the finance issues. Statements such as those made by the Under Treasurer are music to my ears, and I support his making those statements. They are a timely reminder of the challenges we as a State face in meeting our infrastructure needs. We want to meet the needs of health, education, law and order and infrastructure, not only this year but also next year and the year after, on a sustainable basis. When we do our budget planning we look ahead, because we believe in forward planning in a budget sense. We do not take the attitude that the Leader of the Opposition takes that forward estimates do not mean anything. We plan for true sustainable finances that will meet the infrastructure demands of a developing State, pay for increased community services, minimise the tax burden on household and businesses, ensure that we have flexibility to respond to unforeseen challenges in the years ahead, and guard against Peter Costello’s erosion of the State’s financial position. There will always be unforeseen events, and we must have a robust surplus to deal with those events. For example, this year we have had the drought and the impact of the Bali tragedy on our health system - they are just two examples of the unforeseen pressures we have had to face - but we have a responsible financial management strategy. Our AAA rating has been confirmed, we have had a healthy surplus in our first budget, we are curbing expense growth in the public sector, but our financial discipline does not end there. We have established a functional review committee to review spending by government agencies, and that committee will report to the Government with further savings options by the end of the year. We must continue to be vigilant. I will quote one remark made by the Under Treasurer, because the Leader of the Opposition apparently did not want to quote it. The article continues - He said the state’s financial framework was stable for the first time in several years. However, there was a need to remain ever-vigilant. We are being open about the finances and the choices that confront the State, unlike the previous coalition that delivered five deficits out of eight, including those three red lines indicated on this chart that I am holding up. Those opposite did not even admit to the public of Western Australia that they had deficits. In order to fund their infrastructure, they privatised. They certainly could not fund their infrastructure by means of surpluses, because they did not have the surpluses to do that. We have a different strategy. We will not privatise to fund infrastructure, but we will run operating surpluses on day-to-day expenses to provide a source of funding for the capital works programs. The Opposition has not learnt. On 2 September this year the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage went on ABC radio and said - . . . the Opposition intends to offer farmers compensation payments totalling up to $100 million . . . That was for land clearing. I think the Leader of the Opposition is the shadow Treasurer. Is that an official election promise? Does he endorse it as the shadow Treasurer? How will he pay for that $100 million promise? No answer! Now we know how we should react when we hear a shadow minister say something - it is not worth the paper it is written on because shadow ministers do not get the endorsement of the shadow Treasurer before they go out making announcements. They do not know whether that is an official election promise - they do not know how they will fund that promise - because they do not have a financial management plan to put to Western Australians, and they are still in the same position they were in when the Under Treasurer wrote to the Treasurer back in 1998. He said this about the previous Government - Individual Ministers attempting to capture the budget process by seeking in-principle approval for significant expenditure programs before the annual budget process begins and often before the current budget has passed through the Parliament. Who did he cite? The shadow Treasurer. He continued - A classic example is the current proposal by the Minister for Education to expand the Local Area Education Planning initiative, the same Minister’s proposal on regional power . . . It was not just anyone; it was the person who is now the shadow Treasurer for the Opposition. They are behaving like undischarged bankrupts.
As an aside, before I deal with the main part of the question, I want to know why the Opposition is anti-Mandurah and anti-rail. Everything said by opposition members is aimed at putting the project and the town of Mandurah down. I would like that question answered in due course. (1)-(2) I will deal with the finance issues. Statements such as those made by the Under Treasurer are music to my ears, and I support his making those statements. They are a timely reminder of the challenges we as a State face in meeting our infrastructure needs. We want to meet the needs of health, education, law and order and infrastructure, not only this year but also next year and the year after, on a sustainable basis. When we do our budget planning we look ahead, because we believe in forward planning in a budget sense. We do not take the attitude that the Leader of the Opposition takes that forward estimates do not mean anything. We plan for true sustainable finances that will meet the infrastructure demands of a developing State, pay for increased community services, minimise the tax burden on household and businesses, ensure that we have flexibility to respond to unforeseen challenges in the years ahead, and guard against Peter Costello’s erosion of the State’s financial position. There will always be unforeseen events, and we must have a robust surplus to deal with those events. For example, this year we have had the drought and the impact of the Bali tragedy on our health system - they are just two examples of the unforeseen pressures we have had to face - but we have a responsible financial management strategy. Our AAA rating has been confirmed, we have had a healthy surplus in our first budget, we are curbing expense growth in the public sector, but our financial discipline does not end there. We have established a functional review committee to review spending by government agencies, and that committee will report to the Government with further savings options by the end of the year. We must continue to be vigilant. I will quote one remark made by the Under Treasurer, because the Leader of the Opposition apparently did not want to quote it. The article continues - He said the state’s financial framework was stable for the first time in several years. However, there was a need to remain ever-vigilant. We are being open about the finances and the choices that confront the State, unlike the previous coalition that delivered five deficits out of eight, including those three red lines indicated on this chart that I am holding up. Those opposite did not even admit to the public of Western Australia that they had deficits. In order to fund their infrastructure, they privatised. They certainly could not fund their infrastructure by means of surpluses, because they did not have the surpluses to do that. We have a different strategy. We will not privatise to fund infrastructure, but we will run operating surpluses on day-to-day expenses to provide a source of funding for the capital works programs. The Opposition has not learnt. On 2 September this year the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage went on ABC radio and said - . . . the Opposition intends to offer farmers compensation payments totalling up to $100 million . . . That was for land clearing. I think the Leader of the Opposition is the shadow Treasurer. Is that an official election promise? Does he endorse it as the shadow Treasurer? How will he pay for that $100 million promise? No answer! Now we know how we should react when we hear a shadow minister say something - it is not worth the paper it is written on because shadow ministers do not get the endorsement of the shadow Treasurer before they go out making announcements. They do not know whether that is an official election promise - they do not know how they will fund that promise - because they do not have a financial management plan to put to Western Australians, and they are still in the same position they were in when the Under Treasurer wrote to the Treasurer back in 1998. He said this about the previous Government - Individual Ministers attempting to capture the budget process by seeking in-principle approval for significant expenditure programs before the annual budget process begins and often before the current budget has passed through the Parliament. Who did he cite? The shadow Treasurer. He continued - A classic example is the current proposal by the Minister for Education to expand the Local Area Education Planning initiative, the same Minister’s proposal on regional power . . . It was not just anyone; it was the person who is now the shadow Treasurer for the Opposition. They are behaving like undischarged bankrupts.
(1)-(2) I will deal with the finance issues. Statements such as those made by the Under Treasurer are music to my ears, and I support his making those statements. They are a timely reminder of the challenges we as a State face in meeting our infrastructure needs. We want to meet the needs of health, education, law and order and infrastructure, not only this year but also next year and the year after, on a sustainable basis. When we do our budget planning we look ahead, because we believe in forward planning in a budget sense. We do not take the attitude that the Leader of the Opposition takes that forward estimates do not mean anything. We plan for true sustainable finances that will meet the infrastructure demands of a developing State, pay for increased community services, minimise the tax burden on household and businesses, ensure that we have flexibility to respond to unforeseen challenges in the years ahead, and guard against Peter Costello’s erosion of the State’s financial position. There will always be unforeseen events, and we must have a robust surplus to deal with those events. For example, this year we have had the drought and the impact of the Bali tragedy on our health system - they are just two examples of the unforeseen pressures we have had to face - but we have a responsible financial management strategy. Our AAA rating has been confirmed, we have had a healthy surplus in our first budget, we are curbing expense growth in the public sector, but our financial discipline does not end there. We have established a functional review committee to review spending by government agencies, and that committee will report to the Government with further savings options by the end of the year. We must continue to be vigilant. I will quote one remark made by the Under Treasurer, because the Leader of the Opposition apparently did not want to quote it. The article continues - He said the state’s financial framework was stable for the first time in several years. However, there was a need to remain ever-vigilant. We are being open about the finances and the choices that confront the State, unlike the previous coalition that delivered five deficits out of eight, including those three red lines indicated on this chart that I am holding up. Those opposite did not even admit to the public of Western Australia that they had deficits. In order to fund their infrastructure, they privatised. They certainly could not fund their infrastructure by means of surpluses, because they did not have the surpluses to do that. We have a different strategy. We will not privatise to fund infrastructure, but we will run operating surpluses on day-to-day expenses to provide a source of funding for the capital works programs. The Opposition has not learnt. On 2 September this year the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage went on ABC radio and said - . . . the Opposition intends to offer farmers compensation payments totalling up to $100 million . . . That was for land clearing. I think the Leader of the Opposition is the shadow Treasurer. Is that an official election promise? Does he endorse it as the shadow Treasurer? How will he pay for that $100 million promise? No answer! Now we know how we should react when we hear a shadow minister say something - it is not worth the paper it is written on because shadow ministers do not get the endorsement of the shadow Treasurer before they go out making announcements. They do not know whether that is an official election promise - they do not know how they will fund that promise - because they do not have a financial management plan to put to Western Australians, and they are still in the same position they were in when the Under Treasurer wrote to the Treasurer back in 1998. He said this about the previous Government - Individual Ministers attempting to capture the budget process by seeking in-principle approval for significant expenditure programs before the annual budget process begins and often before the current budget has passed through the Parliament. Who did he cite? The shadow Treasurer. He continued - A classic example is the current proposal by the Minister for Education to expand the Local Area Education Planning initiative, the same Minister’s proposal on regional power . . . It was not just anyone; it was the person who is now the shadow Treasurer for the Opposition. They are behaving like undischarged bankrupts.
The Opposition has not learnt. On 2 September this year the shadow Minister for the Environment and Heritage went on ABC radio and said - . . . the Opposition intends to offer farmers compensation payments totalling up to $100 million . . . That was for land clearing. I think the Leader of the Opposition is the shadow Treasurer. Is that an official election promise? Does he endorse it as the shadow Treasurer? How will he pay for that $100 million promise? No answer! Now we know how we should react when we hear a shadow minister say something - it is not worth the paper it is written on because shadow ministers do not get the endorsement of the shadow Treasurer before they go out making announcements. They do not know whether that is an official election promise - they do not know how they will fund that promise - because they do not have a financial management plan to put to Western Australians, and they are still in the same position they were in when the Under Treasurer wrote to the Treasurer back in 1998. He said this about the previous Government - Individual Ministers attempting to capture the budget process by seeking in-principle approval for significant expenditure programs before the annual budget process begins and often before the current budget has passed through the Parliament. Who did he cite? The shadow Treasurer. He continued - A classic example is the current proposal by the Minister for Education to expand the Local Area Education Planning initiative, the same Minister’s proposal on regional power . . . It was not just anyone; it was the person who is now the shadow Treasurer for the Opposition. They are behaving like undischarged bankrupts.
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.