❓ The Treasurer defends the Gallop government's financial management, highlighting budget surpluses, debt reduction, and infrastructure investment without privatisation, while criticising the opposition's economic proposals.
AnsweredQoN 487Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Will the Treasurer inform the house of the Gallop government’s strong financial management achieved without privatisation? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
The Gallop government has delivered four budget surpluses, compared with the five deficits in the eight budgets delivered by its predecessor. Rating agencies recognise that achievement through the continuing awarding of the AAA credit rating to Western Australia. We are not leaving those surpluses lying idle. We are using them to build the infrastructure that this state needs for its future economic prosperity. For example, one can take the record $4.7 billion capital works program in which the government is engaged in this financial year. Less than one-third of the funding for that capital works program is coming from debt. That is because of the surpluses that we are running on the day-to-day expenses of government. In 2003-04, the government had a strong surplus. We used that surplus to pay off $481 million of debt. The surplus in 2004-05 will be used to pay off $326 million of debt. Mr M.J. Birney : You must be the luckiest Treasurer in history. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the Leader of the Opposition had a more intellectual contribution to make to the debate on federal-state financial relations than the comment “stop sooking”, I might listen to some of his interjections; however, that seems to be the depth of his intellectual contribution to this very important issue. On the subject of interest savings, because of those repayments of debt there will be savings on interest payments of about $50 million a year, and that is money that can be used for health, education, law and order, child protection and environmental protection. We are investing in the future. We are planning for the future. We are taking account of the fact that the economy might not always be this good. For example, we had to take into account that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will almost certainly come along and take away some of our commonwealth grants because of the economic performance of this state. We have to take into account the possibility that we might lose up to $100 million a year as a result of Commonwealth Grants Commission activity. What happens on the other side of politics? The Leader of the Opposition has advocated a stamp duty cut of $500 million a year, which means $500 million a year less for key services in health, education and law and order. Now he wants the government to spend $400 million on a petrol subsidy, regardless of the fact that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will take away 90 per cent of the oil royalty gains that the government will make, which will be distributed to other states as a result of a reduction in our share of the commonwealth grants. The Leader of the Opposition would have us spend money that we do not have. I caution the media on the way in which the Leader of the Opposition performs, because when I have challenged him on these matters in the past, he has said that he was not promising that a coalition government would implement them. He said that he was just saying that a Labor government should. When he says that Labor should do something, he does not mean that a government led by him would do it; he is simply acting as a commentator. I advise members of the media that when they hear that type of comment from the Leader of the Opposition, they should ask him what he would do and what his side of politics is committed to. He is trying to slide out of being held accountable as the leader of the alternative government. Many things could be improved in the world if only it were as simple as the Leader of the Opposition!
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: The Gallop government has delivered four budget surpluses, compared with the five deficits in the eight budgets delivered by its predecessor. Rating agencies recognise that achievement through the continuing awarding of the AAA credit rating to Western Australia. We are not leaving those surpluses lying idle. We are using them to build the infrastructure that this state needs for its future economic prosperity. For example, one can take the record $4.7 billion capital works program in which the government is engaged in this financial year. Less than one-third of the funding for that capital works program is coming from debt. That is because of the surpluses that we are running on the day-to-day expenses of government. In 2003-04, the government had a strong surplus. We used that surplus to pay off $481 million of debt. The surplus in 2004-05 will be used to pay off $326 million of debt. Mr M.J. Birney : You must be the luckiest Treasurer in history. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the Leader of the Opposition had a more intellectual contribution to make to the debate on federal-state financial relations than the comment “stop sooking”, I might listen to some of his interjections; however, that seems to be the depth of his intellectual contribution to this very important issue. On the subject of interest savings, because of those repayments of debt there will be savings on interest payments of about $50 million a year, and that is money that can be used for health, education, law and order, child protection and environmental protection. We are investing in the future. We are planning for the future. We are taking account of the fact that the economy might not always be this good. For example, we had to take into account that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will almost certainly come along and take away some of our commonwealth grants because of the economic performance of this state. We have to take into account the possibility that we might lose up to $100 million a year as a result of Commonwealth Grants Commission activity. What happens on the other side of politics? The Leader of the Opposition has advocated a stamp duty cut of $500 million a year, which means $500 million a year less for key services in health, education and law and order. Now he wants the government to spend $400 million on a petrol subsidy, regardless of the fact that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will take away 90 per cent of the oil royalty gains that the government will make, which will be distributed to other states as a result of a reduction in our share of the commonwealth grants. The Leader of the Opposition would have us spend money that we do not have. I caution the media on the way in which the Leader of the Opposition performs, because when I have challenged him on these matters in the past, he has said that he was not promising that a coalition government would implement them. He said that he was just saying that a Labor government should. When he says that Labor should do something, he does not mean that a government led by him would do it; he is simply acting as a commentator. I advise members of the media that when they hear that type of comment from the Leader of the Opposition, they should ask him what he would do and what his side of politics is committed to. He is trying to slide out of being held accountable as the leader of the alternative government. Many things could be improved in the world if only it were as simple as the Leader of the Opposition!
The Gallop government has delivered four budget surpluses, compared with the five deficits in the eight budgets delivered by its predecessor. Rating agencies recognise that achievement through the continuing awarding of the AAA credit rating to Western Australia. We are not leaving those surpluses lying idle. We are using them to build the infrastructure that this state needs for its future economic prosperity. For example, one can take the record $4.7 billion capital works program in which the government is engaged in this financial year. Less than one-third of the funding for that capital works program is coming from debt. That is because of the surpluses that we are running on the day-to-day expenses of government. In 2003-04, the government had a strong surplus. We used that surplus to pay off $481 million of debt. The surplus in 2004-05 will be used to pay off $326 million of debt. Mr M.J. Birney : You must be the luckiest Treasurer in history. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the Leader of the Opposition had a more intellectual contribution to make to the debate on federal-state financial relations than the comment “stop sooking”, I might listen to some of his interjections; however, that seems to be the depth of his intellectual contribution to this very important issue. On the subject of interest savings, because of those repayments of debt there will be savings on interest payments of about $50 million a year, and that is money that can be used for health, education, law and order, child protection and environmental protection. We are investing in the future. We are planning for the future. We are taking account of the fact that the economy might not always be this good. For example, we had to take into account that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will almost certainly come along and take away some of our commonwealth grants because of the economic performance of this state. We have to take into account the possibility that we might lose up to $100 million a year as a result of Commonwealth Grants Commission activity. What happens on the other side of politics? The Leader of the Opposition has advocated a stamp duty cut of $500 million a year, which means $500 million a year less for key services in health, education and law and order. Now he wants the government to spend $400 million on a petrol subsidy, regardless of the fact that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will take away 90 per cent of the oil royalty gains that the government will make, which will be distributed to other states as a result of a reduction in our share of the commonwealth grants. The Leader of the Opposition would have us spend money that we do not have. I caution the media on the way in which the Leader of the Opposition performs, because when I have challenged him on these matters in the past, he has said that he was not promising that a coalition government would implement them. He said that he was just saying that a Labor government should. When he says that Labor should do something, he does not mean that a government led by him would do it; he is simply acting as a commentator. I advise members of the media that when they hear that type of comment from the Leader of the Opposition, they should ask him what he would do and what his side of politics is committed to. He is trying to slide out of being held accountable as the leader of the alternative government. Many things could be improved in the world if only it were as simple as the Leader of the Opposition!
Mr M.J. Birney : You must be the luckiest Treasurer in history. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the Leader of the Opposition had a more intellectual contribution to make to the debate on federal-state financial relations than the comment “stop sooking”, I might listen to some of his interjections; however, that seems to be the depth of his intellectual contribution to this very important issue. On the subject of interest savings, because of those repayments of debt there will be savings on interest payments of about $50 million a year, and that is money that can be used for health, education, law and order, child protection and environmental protection. We are investing in the future. We are planning for the future. We are taking account of the fact that the economy might not always be this good. For example, we had to take into account that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will almost certainly come along and take away some of our commonwealth grants because of the economic performance of this state. We have to take into account the possibility that we might lose up to $100 million a year as a result of Commonwealth Grants Commission activity. What happens on the other side of politics? The Leader of the Opposition has advocated a stamp duty cut of $500 million a year, which means $500 million a year less for key services in health, education and law and order. Now he wants the government to spend $400 million on a petrol subsidy, regardless of the fact that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will take away 90 per cent of the oil royalty gains that the government will make, which will be distributed to other states as a result of a reduction in our share of the commonwealth grants. The Leader of the Opposition would have us spend money that we do not have. I caution the media on the way in which the Leader of the Opposition performs, because when I have challenged him on these matters in the past, he has said that he was not promising that a coalition government would implement them. He said that he was just saying that a Labor government should. When he says that Labor should do something, he does not mean that a government led by him would do it; he is simply acting as a commentator. I advise members of the media that when they hear that type of comment from the Leader of the Opposition, they should ask him what he would do and what his side of politics is committed to. He is trying to slide out of being held accountable as the leader of the alternative government. Many things could be improved in the world if only it were as simple as the Leader of the Opposition!
Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the Leader of the Opposition had a more intellectual contribution to make to the debate on federal-state financial relations than the comment “stop sooking”, I might listen to some of his interjections; however, that seems to be the depth of his intellectual contribution to this very important issue. On the subject of interest savings, because of those repayments of debt there will be savings on interest payments of about $50 million a year, and that is money that can be used for health, education, law and order, child protection and environmental protection. We are investing in the future. We are planning for the future. We are taking account of the fact that the economy might not always be this good. For example, we had to take into account that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will almost certainly come along and take away some of our commonwealth grants because of the economic performance of this state. We have to take into account the possibility that we might lose up to $100 million a year as a result of Commonwealth Grants Commission activity. What happens on the other side of politics? The Leader of the Opposition has advocated a stamp duty cut of $500 million a year, which means $500 million a year less for key services in health, education and law and order. Now he wants the government to spend $400 million on a petrol subsidy, regardless of the fact that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will take away 90 per cent of the oil royalty gains that the government will make, which will be distributed to other states as a result of a reduction in our share of the commonwealth grants. The Leader of the Opposition would have us spend money that we do not have. I caution the media on the way in which the Leader of the Opposition performs, because when I have challenged him on these matters in the past, he has said that he was not promising that a coalition government would implement them. He said that he was just saying that a Labor government should. When he says that Labor should do something, he does not mean that a government led by him would do it; he is simply acting as a commentator. I advise members of the media that when they hear that type of comment from the Leader of the Opposition, they should ask him what he would do and what his side of politics is committed to. He is trying to slide out of being held accountable as the leader of the alternative government. Many things could be improved in the world if only it were as simple as the Leader of the Opposition!
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: The Gallop government has delivered four budget surpluses, compared with the five deficits in the eight budgets delivered by its predecessor. Rating agencies recognise that achievement through the continuing awarding of the AAA credit rating to Western Australia. We are not leaving those surpluses lying idle. We are using them to build the infrastructure that this state needs for its future economic prosperity. For example, one can take the record $4.7 billion capital works program in which the government is engaged in this financial year. Less than one-third of the funding for that capital works program is coming from debt. That is because of the surpluses that we are running on the day-to-day expenses of government. In 2003-04, the government had a strong surplus. We used that surplus to pay off $481 million of debt. The surplus in 2004-05 will be used to pay off $326 million of debt. Mr M.J. Birney : You must be the luckiest Treasurer in history. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the Leader of the Opposition had a more intellectual contribution to make to the debate on federal-state financial relations than the comment “stop sooking”, I might listen to some of his interjections; however, that seems to be the depth of his intellectual contribution to this very important issue. On the subject of interest savings, because of those repayments of debt there will be savings on interest payments of about $50 million a year, and that is money that can be used for health, education, law and order, child protection and environmental protection. We are investing in the future. We are planning for the future. We are taking account of the fact that the economy might not always be this good. For example, we had to take into account that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will almost certainly come along and take away some of our commonwealth grants because of the economic performance of this state. We have to take into account the possibility that we might lose up to $100 million a year as a result of Commonwealth Grants Commission activity. What happens on the other side of politics? The Leader of the Opposition has advocated a stamp duty cut of $500 million a year, which means $500 million a year less for key services in health, education and law and order. Now he wants the government to spend $400 million on a petrol subsidy, regardless of the fact that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will take away 90 per cent of the oil royalty gains that the government will make, which will be distributed to other states as a result of a reduction in our share of the commonwealth grants. The Leader of the Opposition would have us spend money that we do not have. I caution the media on the way in which the Leader of the Opposition performs, because when I have challenged him on these matters in the past, he has said that he was not promising that a coalition government would implement them. He said that he was just saying that a Labor government should. When he says that Labor should do something, he does not mean that a government led by him would do it; he is simply acting as a commentator. I advise members of the media that when they hear that type of comment from the Leader of the Opposition, they should ask him what he would do and what his side of politics is committed to. He is trying to slide out of being held accountable as the leader of the alternative government. Many things could be improved in the world if only it were as simple as the Leader of the Opposition!
The Gallop government has delivered four budget surpluses, compared with the five deficits in the eight budgets delivered by its predecessor. Rating agencies recognise that achievement through the continuing awarding of the AAA credit rating to Western Australia. We are not leaving those surpluses lying idle. We are using them to build the infrastructure that this state needs for its future economic prosperity. For example, one can take the record $4.7 billion capital works program in which the government is engaged in this financial year. Less than one-third of the funding for that capital works program is coming from debt. That is because of the surpluses that we are running on the day-to-day expenses of government. In 2003-04, the government had a strong surplus. We used that surplus to pay off $481 million of debt. The surplus in 2004-05 will be used to pay off $326 million of debt. Mr M.J. Birney : You must be the luckiest Treasurer in history. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the Leader of the Opposition had a more intellectual contribution to make to the debate on federal-state financial relations than the comment “stop sooking”, I might listen to some of his interjections; however, that seems to be the depth of his intellectual contribution to this very important issue. On the subject of interest savings, because of those repayments of debt there will be savings on interest payments of about $50 million a year, and that is money that can be used for health, education, law and order, child protection and environmental protection. We are investing in the future. We are planning for the future. We are taking account of the fact that the economy might not always be this good. For example, we had to take into account that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will almost certainly come along and take away some of our commonwealth grants because of the economic performance of this state. We have to take into account the possibility that we might lose up to $100 million a year as a result of Commonwealth Grants Commission activity. What happens on the other side of politics? The Leader of the Opposition has advocated a stamp duty cut of $500 million a year, which means $500 million a year less for key services in health, education and law and order. Now he wants the government to spend $400 million on a petrol subsidy, regardless of the fact that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will take away 90 per cent of the oil royalty gains that the government will make, which will be distributed to other states as a result of a reduction in our share of the commonwealth grants. The Leader of the Opposition would have us spend money that we do not have. I caution the media on the way in which the Leader of the Opposition performs, because when I have challenged him on these matters in the past, he has said that he was not promising that a coalition government would implement them. He said that he was just saying that a Labor government should. When he says that Labor should do something, he does not mean that a government led by him would do it; he is simply acting as a commentator. I advise members of the media that when they hear that type of comment from the Leader of the Opposition, they should ask him what he would do and what his side of politics is committed to. He is trying to slide out of being held accountable as the leader of the alternative government. Many things could be improved in the world if only it were as simple as the Leader of the Opposition!
Mr M.J. Birney : You must be the luckiest Treasurer in history. Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the Leader of the Opposition had a more intellectual contribution to make to the debate on federal-state financial relations than the comment “stop sooking”, I might listen to some of his interjections; however, that seems to be the depth of his intellectual contribution to this very important issue. On the subject of interest savings, because of those repayments of debt there will be savings on interest payments of about $50 million a year, and that is money that can be used for health, education, law and order, child protection and environmental protection. We are investing in the future. We are planning for the future. We are taking account of the fact that the economy might not always be this good. For example, we had to take into account that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will almost certainly come along and take away some of our commonwealth grants because of the economic performance of this state. We have to take into account the possibility that we might lose up to $100 million a year as a result of Commonwealth Grants Commission activity. What happens on the other side of politics? The Leader of the Opposition has advocated a stamp duty cut of $500 million a year, which means $500 million a year less for key services in health, education and law and order. Now he wants the government to spend $400 million on a petrol subsidy, regardless of the fact that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will take away 90 per cent of the oil royalty gains that the government will make, which will be distributed to other states as a result of a reduction in our share of the commonwealth grants. The Leader of the Opposition would have us spend money that we do not have. I caution the media on the way in which the Leader of the Opposition performs, because when I have challenged him on these matters in the past, he has said that he was not promising that a coalition government would implement them. He said that he was just saying that a Labor government should. When he says that Labor should do something, he does not mean that a government led by him would do it; he is simply acting as a commentator. I advise members of the media that when they hear that type of comment from the Leader of the Opposition, they should ask him what he would do and what his side of politics is committed to. He is trying to slide out of being held accountable as the leader of the alternative government. Many things could be improved in the world if only it were as simple as the Leader of the Opposition!
Mr E.S. RIPPER : If the Leader of the Opposition had a more intellectual contribution to make to the debate on federal-state financial relations than the comment “stop sooking”, I might listen to some of his interjections; however, that seems to be the depth of his intellectual contribution to this very important issue. On the subject of interest savings, because of those repayments of debt there will be savings on interest payments of about $50 million a year, and that is money that can be used for health, education, law and order, child protection and environmental protection. We are investing in the future. We are planning for the future. We are taking account of the fact that the economy might not always be this good. For example, we had to take into account that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will almost certainly come along and take away some of our commonwealth grants because of the economic performance of this state. We have to take into account the possibility that we might lose up to $100 million a year as a result of Commonwealth Grants Commission activity. What happens on the other side of politics? The Leader of the Opposition has advocated a stamp duty cut of $500 million a year, which means $500 million a year less for key services in health, education and law and order. Now he wants the government to spend $400 million on a petrol subsidy, regardless of the fact that the Commonwealth Grants Commission will take away 90 per cent of the oil royalty gains that the government will make, which will be distributed to other states as a result of a reduction in our share of the commonwealth grants. The Leader of the Opposition would have us spend money that we do not have. I caution the media on the way in which the Leader of the Opposition performs, because when I have challenged him on these matters in the past, he has said that he was not promising that a coalition government would implement them. He said that he was just saying that a Labor government should. When he says that Labor should do something, he does not mean that a government led by him would do it; he is simply acting as a commentator. I advise members of the media that when they hear that type of comment from the Leader of the Opposition, they should ask him what he would do and what his side of politics is committed to. He is trying to slide out of being held accountable as the leader of the alternative government. Many things could be improved in the world if only it were as simple as the Leader of the Opposition!
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.