❓ Treasurer Ripper deflects blame for budget difficulties, accusing the previous Liberal government of financial mismanagement and highlighting discrepancies in costings of election promises. He also attacks the Leader of the Opposition's financial accountability.
AnsweredQoN 254Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
BUDGET, ELECTION PROMISES
Is the Treasurer aware of the Leader of the Opposition’s suggestion in today’s The Australian newspaper that the State’s budget difficulties arise from Labor’s inability to fund its election promises? Mr RIPPER
Is the Treasurer aware of the Leader of the Opposition’s suggestion in today’s The Australian newspaper that the State’s budget difficulties arise from Labor’s inability to fund its election promises? Mr RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
All that ever comes from the Opposition is a refusal to accept responsibility for the budget difficulties it bequeathed to the incoming Government. It is not surprising - refusal to accept responsibility was a mark of the Opposition’s behaviour, both individually and collectively, when in government. The more I find out about the history of the budget in the previous Government, the more sympathy I have for Richard Court. What a task he must have had, managing the financial cowboys opposite! Labor costed its promises on operating expenditure at $756 million over four years. Mr Barnett: That figure is now up to $1.5 billion. Mr RIPPER: I will let the Opposition in on a little secret about the advice from Treasury on the cost of the Labor Party’s promises when it came into government. It was not $2 billion, nor was it $1.5 billion or $1.2 billion. It was not $1 billion. The cost of the Government’s recurrent promises over four years, according to Treasury, was $779 million. There was an error of $5.5 million each year. That was a pretty good result from Opposition. The Labor Party did a much better job on its costings than the financial cowboys opposite were able to do. The real pressure on the budget results from the $1 billion spending commitments entered into by the previous Government in its last desperate year. I would not disappoint the House by failing to remind it of the size of the Barnett budget blow-out - $485 million. The Leader of the Opposition should stop pontificating about fiscal rectitude. He should show the House his shoes. He is the Imelda Marcos of financial accountability.
Mr RIPPER replied: All that ever comes from the Opposition is a refusal to accept responsibility for the budget difficulties it bequeathed to the incoming Government. It is not surprising - refusal to accept responsibility was a mark of the Opposition’s behaviour, both individually and collectively, when in government. The more I find out about the history of the budget in the previous Government, the more sympathy I have for Richard Court. What a task he must have had, managing the financial cowboys opposite! Labor costed its promises on operating expenditure at $756 million over four years. Mr Barnett: That figure is now up to $1.5 billion. Mr RIPPER: I will let the Opposition in on a little secret about the advice from Treasury on the cost of the Labor Party’s promises when it came into government. It was not $2 billion, nor was it $1.5 billion or $1.2 billion. It was not $1 billion. The cost of the Government’s recurrent promises over four years, according to Treasury, was $779 million. There was an error of $5.5 million each year. That was a pretty good result from Opposition. The Labor Party did a much better job on its costings than the financial cowboys opposite were able to do. The real pressure on the budget results from the $1 billion spending commitments entered into by the previous Government in its last desperate year. I would not disappoint the House by failing to remind it of the size of the Barnett budget blow-out - $485 million. The Leader of the Opposition should stop pontificating about fiscal rectitude. He should show the House his shoes. He is the Imelda Marcos of financial accountability.
All that ever comes from the Opposition is a refusal to accept responsibility for the budget difficulties it bequeathed to the incoming Government. It is not surprising - refusal to accept responsibility was a mark of the Opposition’s behaviour, both individually and collectively, when in government. The more I find out about the history of the budget in the previous Government, the more sympathy I have for Richard Court. What a task he must have had, managing the financial cowboys opposite! Labor costed its promises on operating expenditure at $756 million over four years. Mr Barnett: That figure is now up to $1.5 billion. Mr RIPPER: I will let the Opposition in on a little secret about the advice from Treasury on the cost of the Labor Party’s promises when it came into government. It was not $2 billion, nor was it $1.5 billion or $1.2 billion. It was not $1 billion. The cost of the Government’s recurrent promises over four years, according to Treasury, was $779 million. There was an error of $5.5 million each year. That was a pretty good result from Opposition. The Labor Party did a much better job on its costings than the financial cowboys opposite were able to do. The real pressure on the budget results from the $1 billion spending commitments entered into by the previous Government in its last desperate year. I would not disappoint the House by failing to remind it of the size of the Barnett budget blow-out - $485 million. The Leader of the Opposition should stop pontificating about fiscal rectitude. He should show the House his shoes. He is the Imelda Marcos of financial accountability.
Mr Barnett: That figure is now up to $1.5 billion. Mr RIPPER: I will let the Opposition in on a little secret about the advice from Treasury on the cost of the Labor Party’s promises when it came into government. It was not $2 billion, nor was it $1.5 billion or $1.2 billion. It was not $1 billion. The cost of the Government’s recurrent promises over four years, according to Treasury, was $779 million. There was an error of $5.5 million each year. That was a pretty good result from Opposition. The Labor Party did a much better job on its costings than the financial cowboys opposite were able to do. The real pressure on the budget results from the $1 billion spending commitments entered into by the previous Government in its last desperate year. I would not disappoint the House by failing to remind it of the size of the Barnett budget blow-out - $485 million. The Leader of the Opposition should stop pontificating about fiscal rectitude. He should show the House his shoes. He is the Imelda Marcos of financial accountability.
Mr RIPPER: I will let the Opposition in on a little secret about the advice from Treasury on the cost of the Labor Party’s promises when it came into government. It was not $2 billion, nor was it $1.5 billion or $1.2 billion. It was not $1 billion. The cost of the Government’s recurrent promises over four years, according to Treasury, was $779 million. There was an error of $5.5 million each year. That was a pretty good result from Opposition. The Labor Party did a much better job on its costings than the financial cowboys opposite were able to do. The real pressure on the budget results from the $1 billion spending commitments entered into by the previous Government in its last desperate year. I would not disappoint the House by failing to remind it of the size of the Barnett budget blow-out - $485 million. The Leader of the Opposition should stop pontificating about fiscal rectitude. He should show the House his shoes. He is the Imelda Marcos of financial accountability.
Mr RIPPER replied: All that ever comes from the Opposition is a refusal to accept responsibility for the budget difficulties it bequeathed to the incoming Government. It is not surprising - refusal to accept responsibility was a mark of the Opposition’s behaviour, both individually and collectively, when in government. The more I find out about the history of the budget in the previous Government, the more sympathy I have for Richard Court. What a task he must have had, managing the financial cowboys opposite! Labor costed its promises on operating expenditure at $756 million over four years. Mr Barnett: That figure is now up to $1.5 billion. Mr RIPPER: I will let the Opposition in on a little secret about the advice from Treasury on the cost of the Labor Party’s promises when it came into government. It was not $2 billion, nor was it $1.5 billion or $1.2 billion. It was not $1 billion. The cost of the Government’s recurrent promises over four years, according to Treasury, was $779 million. There was an error of $5.5 million each year. That was a pretty good result from Opposition. The Labor Party did a much better job on its costings than the financial cowboys opposite were able to do. The real pressure on the budget results from the $1 billion spending commitments entered into by the previous Government in its last desperate year. I would not disappoint the House by failing to remind it of the size of the Barnett budget blow-out - $485 million. The Leader of the Opposition should stop pontificating about fiscal rectitude. He should show the House his shoes. He is the Imelda Marcos of financial accountability.
All that ever comes from the Opposition is a refusal to accept responsibility for the budget difficulties it bequeathed to the incoming Government. It is not surprising - refusal to accept responsibility was a mark of the Opposition’s behaviour, both individually and collectively, when in government. The more I find out about the history of the budget in the previous Government, the more sympathy I have for Richard Court. What a task he must have had, managing the financial cowboys opposite! Labor costed its promises on operating expenditure at $756 million over four years. Mr Barnett: That figure is now up to $1.5 billion. Mr RIPPER: I will let the Opposition in on a little secret about the advice from Treasury on the cost of the Labor Party’s promises when it came into government. It was not $2 billion, nor was it $1.5 billion or $1.2 billion. It was not $1 billion. The cost of the Government’s recurrent promises over four years, according to Treasury, was $779 million. There was an error of $5.5 million each year. That was a pretty good result from Opposition. The Labor Party did a much better job on its costings than the financial cowboys opposite were able to do. The real pressure on the budget results from the $1 billion spending commitments entered into by the previous Government in its last desperate year. I would not disappoint the House by failing to remind it of the size of the Barnett budget blow-out - $485 million. The Leader of the Opposition should stop pontificating about fiscal rectitude. He should show the House his shoes. He is the Imelda Marcos of financial accountability.
Mr Barnett: That figure is now up to $1.5 billion. Mr RIPPER: I will let the Opposition in on a little secret about the advice from Treasury on the cost of the Labor Party’s promises when it came into government. It was not $2 billion, nor was it $1.5 billion or $1.2 billion. It was not $1 billion. The cost of the Government’s recurrent promises over four years, according to Treasury, was $779 million. There was an error of $5.5 million each year. That was a pretty good result from Opposition. The Labor Party did a much better job on its costings than the financial cowboys opposite were able to do. The real pressure on the budget results from the $1 billion spending commitments entered into by the previous Government in its last desperate year. I would not disappoint the House by failing to remind it of the size of the Barnett budget blow-out - $485 million. The Leader of the Opposition should stop pontificating about fiscal rectitude. He should show the House his shoes. He is the Imelda Marcos of financial accountability.
Mr RIPPER: I will let the Opposition in on a little secret about the advice from Treasury on the cost of the Labor Party’s promises when it came into government. It was not $2 billion, nor was it $1.5 billion or $1.2 billion. It was not $1 billion. The cost of the Government’s recurrent promises over four years, according to Treasury, was $779 million. There was an error of $5.5 million each year. That was a pretty good result from Opposition. The Labor Party did a much better job on its costings than the financial cowboys opposite were able to do. The real pressure on the budget results from the $1 billion spending commitments entered into by the previous Government in its last desperate year. I would not disappoint the House by failing to remind it of the size of the Barnett budget blow-out - $485 million. The Leader of the Opposition should stop pontificating about fiscal rectitude. He should show the House his shoes. He is the Imelda Marcos of financial accountability.
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.