❓ A parliamentary question on notice regarding road funding, with the opposition questioning potential budget cuts and underspending. The Minister refutes the claims, citing increased overall expenditure and historical underspending issues.
AnsweredQoN 699Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to an article in the Sunday Times on 3 May 2003 in which the Premier claimed that spending on rail would be balanced alongside road funding. I ask - (1) Is the minister aware that in the 2002-03 financial year, the Government underspent its budget allocation for road funding under the Main Roads budget by approximately $50 million? (2) Is the minister further aware that the Government’s budget, which was announced last week, represents a real cut of 2.3 per cent in the Main Roads budget, which is the third cut in the Government’s three budgets? (3) Will the minister confirm that the Government has cut $14 million from local government road funding, which is contrary to its pre-election commitment to maintain funding levels. (4) Will the minister also confirm that as a recommendation of the Functional Review Taskforce, the Government intends to slash road funding over the next four years by another $200 million? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(4) Quite predictably, the member for Carine has got her facts wrong. Indeed, there has been a considerable increase in the road budget - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Despite the fact that member should have given some notice of the questions if she wanted them dealt with in that order, I will address her questions. First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
(1) Is the minister aware that in the 2002-03 financial year, the Government underspent its budget allocation for road funding under the Main Roads budget by approximately $50 million? (2) Is the minister further aware that the Government’s budget, which was announced last week, represents a real cut of 2.3 per cent in the Main Roads budget, which is the third cut in the Government’s three budgets? (3) Will the minister confirm that the Government has cut $14 million from local government road funding, which is contrary to its pre-election commitment to maintain funding levels. (4) Will the minister also confirm that as a recommendation of the Functional Review Taskforce, the Government intends to slash road funding over the next four years by another $200 million? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(4) Quite predictably, the member for Carine has got her facts wrong. Indeed, there has been a considerable increase in the road budget - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Despite the fact that member should have given some notice of the questions if she wanted them dealt with in that order, I will address her questions. First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
(2) Is the minister further aware that the Government’s budget, which was announced last week, represents a real cut of 2.3 per cent in the Main Roads budget, which is the third cut in the Government’s three budgets? (3) Will the minister confirm that the Government has cut $14 million from local government road funding, which is contrary to its pre-election commitment to maintain funding levels. (4) Will the minister also confirm that as a recommendation of the Functional Review Taskforce, the Government intends to slash road funding over the next four years by another $200 million? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(4) Quite predictably, the member for Carine has got her facts wrong. Indeed, there has been a considerable increase in the road budget - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Despite the fact that member should have given some notice of the questions if she wanted them dealt with in that order, I will address her questions. First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
(3) Will the minister confirm that the Government has cut $14 million from local government road funding, which is contrary to its pre-election commitment to maintain funding levels. (4) Will the minister also confirm that as a recommendation of the Functional Review Taskforce, the Government intends to slash road funding over the next four years by another $200 million? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(4) Quite predictably, the member for Carine has got her facts wrong. Indeed, there has been a considerable increase in the road budget - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Despite the fact that member should have given some notice of the questions if she wanted them dealt with in that order, I will address her questions. First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
(4) Will the minister also confirm that as a recommendation of the Functional Review Taskforce, the Government intends to slash road funding over the next four years by another $200 million? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(4) Quite predictably, the member for Carine has got her facts wrong. Indeed, there has been a considerable increase in the road budget - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Despite the fact that member should have given some notice of the questions if she wanted them dealt with in that order, I will address her questions. First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(4) Quite predictably, the member for Carine has got her facts wrong. Indeed, there has been a considerable increase in the road budget - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Despite the fact that member should have given some notice of the questions if she wanted them dealt with in that order, I will address her questions. First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
(1)-(4) Quite predictably, the member for Carine has got her facts wrong. Indeed, there has been a considerable increase in the road budget - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Despite the fact that member should have given some notice of the questions if she wanted them dealt with in that order, I will address her questions. First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Despite the fact that member should have given some notice of the questions if she wanted them dealt with in that order, I will address her questions. First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Despite the fact that member should have given some notice of the questions if she wanted them dealt with in that order, I will address her questions. First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
(1) Is the minister aware that in the 2002-03 financial year, the Government underspent its budget allocation for road funding under the Main Roads budget by approximately $50 million? (2) Is the minister further aware that the Government’s budget, which was announced last week, represents a real cut of 2.3 per cent in the Main Roads budget, which is the third cut in the Government’s three budgets? (3) Will the minister confirm that the Government has cut $14 million from local government road funding, which is contrary to its pre-election commitment to maintain funding levels. (4) Will the minister also confirm that as a recommendation of the Functional Review Taskforce, the Government intends to slash road funding over the next four years by another $200 million? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(4) Quite predictably, the member for Carine has got her facts wrong. Indeed, there has been a considerable increase in the road budget - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Despite the fact that member should have given some notice of the questions if she wanted them dealt with in that order, I will address her questions. First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
(2) Is the minister further aware that the Government’s budget, which was announced last week, represents a real cut of 2.3 per cent in the Main Roads budget, which is the third cut in the Government’s three budgets? (3) Will the minister confirm that the Government has cut $14 million from local government road funding, which is contrary to its pre-election commitment to maintain funding levels. (4) Will the minister also confirm that as a recommendation of the Functional Review Taskforce, the Government intends to slash road funding over the next four years by another $200 million? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(4) Quite predictably, the member for Carine has got her facts wrong. Indeed, there has been a considerable increase in the road budget - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Despite the fact that member should have given some notice of the questions if she wanted them dealt with in that order, I will address her questions. First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
(3) Will the minister confirm that the Government has cut $14 million from local government road funding, which is contrary to its pre-election commitment to maintain funding levels. (4) Will the minister also confirm that as a recommendation of the Functional Review Taskforce, the Government intends to slash road funding over the next four years by another $200 million? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(4) Quite predictably, the member for Carine has got her facts wrong. Indeed, there has been a considerable increase in the road budget - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Despite the fact that member should have given some notice of the questions if she wanted them dealt with in that order, I will address her questions. First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
(4) Will the minister also confirm that as a recommendation of the Functional Review Taskforce, the Government intends to slash road funding over the next four years by another $200 million? Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(4) Quite predictably, the member for Carine has got her facts wrong. Indeed, there has been a considerable increase in the road budget - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Despite the fact that member should have given some notice of the questions if she wanted them dealt with in that order, I will address her questions. First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN replied: (1)-(4) Quite predictably, the member for Carine has got her facts wrong. Indeed, there has been a considerable increase in the road budget - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Despite the fact that member should have given some notice of the questions if she wanted them dealt with in that order, I will address her questions. First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
(1)-(4) Quite predictably, the member for Carine has got her facts wrong. Indeed, there has been a considerable increase in the road budget - Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Despite the fact that member should have given some notice of the questions if she wanted them dealt with in that order, I will address her questions. First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Despite the fact that member should have given some notice of the questions if she wanted them dealt with in that order, I will address her questions. First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: Despite the fact that member should have given some notice of the questions if she wanted them dealt with in that order, I will address her questions. First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
First, I will deal with the proposition of underspending. It is true that there has been underspending; indeed, there has been underspending in the Main Roads budget for many years. During the period of the member’s Government, that underspending was considerably larger. Part of that results from the project nature of the budget; that is, before committing to a contract, the funds must be in the budget. Very often a contract does not proceed at the pace that was originally expected. However, the money has to be in the budget before the contract can be entered into. The budget figures, particularly for 1998-99 and 1999-2000, reveal that there was a substantial degree of underspending in those years. We are working with Main Roads to ensure that we get a tighter match. However, because of the project nature of the budget, there will always be a difference between what is budgeted and what is spent. The allegation that there has been a reduction in funding is simply not correct. The total expenditure by Main Roads in 2003-04 is estimated to be $773 million, which is up from the $697.2 million that was in last year’s budget. I am not quite sure what the member has used as her reference. The amount allocated from the consolidated fund is up from $605 million to $652 million, which is an increase of 7.7 per cent. I am not sure from where the member for Carine is getting her figures. The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
The member must appreciate that we have not cut local government funding to regional road groups - I refer to the direct grants that go to local governments - from the amount included in last year’s budget. We have been keen to ensure the protection of that funding. We have also carried out an analysis on the amount that has been given to local governments since our term of government. Taken globally, we have well exceeded the terms of the local government agreement. Over the life of that agreement we have delivered on not only the 25 per cent formula, but also - Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
Mr M.W. Trenorden interjected. Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
Ms A.J. MacTIERNAN: I acknowledge that in the coming year there will be less than the minimum amount to which we agreed. However, taken over the three terms of our Government, we have increased the amount over and above the minimum that was allocated.
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.