❓ Mr. Stephens questions the Commonwealth's infrastructure funding in WA. Mr. Ripper argues for increased funding due to WA's economic contribution, low GST share, high tax revenue for the Commonwealth, and national benefit from WA infrastructure improvements.
AnsweredQoN 640Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING - COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT 640. Mr T.G. STEPHENS to the Treasurer: Can the Treasurer please inform the house why the commonwealth should increase its infrastructure funding in Western Australia? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
Western Australia’s economy is driving national financial health and national economic prosperity. Members need only look at the gross domestic product per capita figures. In Western Australia, the figure is more than $58 000 per capita - that is the size of our economy - whereas the relevant figure for the national economy is about $47 000 per capita. In the context of that prosperity that Western Australia is driving, I can give at least four reasons that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia. The first reason is that the commonwealth’s infrastructure investment nationally is very poor compared with the states’ effort, and particularly Western Australia’s effort. Nationally, the commonwealth invests $317 per capita on infrastructure, while Western Australia invests $2 154 per capita. The second argument is this: Western Australia now gets less than its population’s share of the goods and services tax; we are getting only 9.4 per cent of the goods and services tax in this financial year. In 2010-11, we will get only 7.5 per cent of the GST compared with a more than 10 per cent share of the population. If things keep going as they are, in eight years we will get only 5.9 per cent of the GST. The third reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia is that the commonwealth reaps an enormous tax return from this state. The commonwealth collects, including GST as a commonwealth tax, $14 578 per capita in taxes in Western Australia. That might not be such a bad thing if the commonwealth spent all the money in Western Australia, but it does not. It takes $5 billion of it and spends it elsewhere; that is, $2 440 per person is taken out of this state and spent in other places. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Dawesville! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Therefore, the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia provides the rest of the Federation is the third reason that the commonwealth should invest more in this state. Mr P.D. Omodei : Like New South Wales and Victoria? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING - COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT
Can the Treasurer please inform the house why the commonwealth should increase its infrastructure funding in Western Australia? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: Western Australia’s economy is driving national financial health and national economic prosperity. Members need only look at the gross domestic product per capita figures. In Western Australia, the figure is more than $58 000 per capita - that is the size of our economy - whereas the relevant figure for the national economy is about $47 000 per capita. In the context of that prosperity that Western Australia is driving, I can give at least four reasons that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia. The first reason is that the commonwealth’s infrastructure investment nationally is very poor compared with the states’ effort, and particularly Western Australia’s effort. Nationally, the commonwealth invests $317 per capita on infrastructure, while Western Australia invests $2 154 per capita. The second argument is this: Western Australia now gets less than its population’s share of the goods and services tax; we are getting only 9.4 per cent of the goods and services tax in this financial year. In 2010-11, we will get only 7.5 per cent of the GST compared with a more than 10 per cent share of the population. If things keep going as they are, in eight years we will get only 5.9 per cent of the GST. The third reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia is that the commonwealth reaps an enormous tax return from this state. The commonwealth collects, including GST as a commonwealth tax, $14 578 per capita in taxes in Western Australia. That might not be such a bad thing if the commonwealth spent all the money in Western Australia, but it does not. It takes $5 billion of it and spends it elsewhere; that is, $2 440 per person is taken out of this state and spent in other places. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Dawesville! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Therefore, the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia provides the rest of the Federation is the third reason that the commonwealth should invest more in this state. Mr P.D. Omodei : Like New South Wales and Victoria? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: Western Australia’s economy is driving national financial health and national economic prosperity. Members need only look at the gross domestic product per capita figures. In Western Australia, the figure is more than $58 000 per capita - that is the size of our economy - whereas the relevant figure for the national economy is about $47 000 per capita. In the context of that prosperity that Western Australia is driving, I can give at least four reasons that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia. The first reason is that the commonwealth’s infrastructure investment nationally is very poor compared with the states’ effort, and particularly Western Australia’s effort. Nationally, the commonwealth invests $317 per capita on infrastructure, while Western Australia invests $2 154 per capita. The second argument is this: Western Australia now gets less than its population’s share of the goods and services tax; we are getting only 9.4 per cent of the goods and services tax in this financial year. In 2010-11, we will get only 7.5 per cent of the GST compared with a more than 10 per cent share of the population. If things keep going as they are, in eight years we will get only 5.9 per cent of the GST. The third reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia is that the commonwealth reaps an enormous tax return from this state. The commonwealth collects, including GST as a commonwealth tax, $14 578 per capita in taxes in Western Australia. That might not be such a bad thing if the commonwealth spent all the money in Western Australia, but it does not. It takes $5 billion of it and spends it elsewhere; that is, $2 440 per person is taken out of this state and spent in other places. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Dawesville! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Therefore, the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia provides the rest of the Federation is the third reason that the commonwealth should invest more in this state. Mr P.D. Omodei : Like New South Wales and Victoria? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Western Australia’s economy is driving national financial health and national economic prosperity. Members need only look at the gross domestic product per capita figures. In Western Australia, the figure is more than $58 000 per capita - that is the size of our economy - whereas the relevant figure for the national economy is about $47 000 per capita. In the context of that prosperity that Western Australia is driving, I can give at least four reasons that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia. The first reason is that the commonwealth’s infrastructure investment nationally is very poor compared with the states’ effort, and particularly Western Australia’s effort. Nationally, the commonwealth invests $317 per capita on infrastructure, while Western Australia invests $2 154 per capita. The second argument is this: Western Australia now gets less than its population’s share of the goods and services tax; we are getting only 9.4 per cent of the goods and services tax in this financial year. In 2010-11, we will get only 7.5 per cent of the GST compared with a more than 10 per cent share of the population. If things keep going as they are, in eight years we will get only 5.9 per cent of the GST. The third reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia is that the commonwealth reaps an enormous tax return from this state. The commonwealth collects, including GST as a commonwealth tax, $14 578 per capita in taxes in Western Australia. That might not be such a bad thing if the commonwealth spent all the money in Western Australia, but it does not. It takes $5 billion of it and spends it elsewhere; that is, $2 440 per person is taken out of this state and spent in other places. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Dawesville! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Therefore, the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia provides the rest of the Federation is the third reason that the commonwealth should invest more in this state. Mr P.D. Omodei : Like New South Wales and Victoria? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
The second argument is this: Western Australia now gets less than its population’s share of the goods and services tax; we are getting only 9.4 per cent of the goods and services tax in this financial year. In 2010-11, we will get only 7.5 per cent of the GST compared with a more than 10 per cent share of the population. If things keep going as they are, in eight years we will get only 5.9 per cent of the GST. The third reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia is that the commonwealth reaps an enormous tax return from this state. The commonwealth collects, including GST as a commonwealth tax, $14 578 per capita in taxes in Western Australia. That might not be such a bad thing if the commonwealth spent all the money in Western Australia, but it does not. It takes $5 billion of it and spends it elsewhere; that is, $2 440 per person is taken out of this state and spent in other places. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Dawesville! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Therefore, the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia provides the rest of the Federation is the third reason that the commonwealth should invest more in this state. Mr P.D. Omodei : Like New South Wales and Victoria? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Dawesville! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Therefore, the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia provides the rest of the Federation is the third reason that the commonwealth should invest more in this state. Mr P.D. Omodei : Like New South Wales and Victoria? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
The SPEAKER : Order, member for Dawesville! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Therefore, the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia provides the rest of the Federation is the third reason that the commonwealth should invest more in this state. Mr P.D. Omodei : Like New South Wales and Victoria? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Therefore, the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia provides the rest of the Federation is the third reason that the commonwealth should invest more in this state. Mr P.D. Omodei : Like New South Wales and Victoria? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Mr P.D. Omodei : Like New South Wales and Victoria? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING - COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT
Can the Treasurer please inform the house why the commonwealth should increase its infrastructure funding in Western Australia? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: Western Australia’s economy is driving national financial health and national economic prosperity. Members need only look at the gross domestic product per capita figures. In Western Australia, the figure is more than $58 000 per capita - that is the size of our economy - whereas the relevant figure for the national economy is about $47 000 per capita. In the context of that prosperity that Western Australia is driving, I can give at least four reasons that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia. The first reason is that the commonwealth’s infrastructure investment nationally is very poor compared with the states’ effort, and particularly Western Australia’s effort. Nationally, the commonwealth invests $317 per capita on infrastructure, while Western Australia invests $2 154 per capita. The second argument is this: Western Australia now gets less than its population’s share of the goods and services tax; we are getting only 9.4 per cent of the goods and services tax in this financial year. In 2010-11, we will get only 7.5 per cent of the GST compared with a more than 10 per cent share of the population. If things keep going as they are, in eight years we will get only 5.9 per cent of the GST. The third reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia is that the commonwealth reaps an enormous tax return from this state. The commonwealth collects, including GST as a commonwealth tax, $14 578 per capita in taxes in Western Australia. That might not be such a bad thing if the commonwealth spent all the money in Western Australia, but it does not. It takes $5 billion of it and spends it elsewhere; that is, $2 440 per person is taken out of this state and spent in other places. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Dawesville! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Therefore, the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia provides the rest of the Federation is the third reason that the commonwealth should invest more in this state. Mr P.D. Omodei : Like New South Wales and Victoria? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: Western Australia’s economy is driving national financial health and national economic prosperity. Members need only look at the gross domestic product per capita figures. In Western Australia, the figure is more than $58 000 per capita - that is the size of our economy - whereas the relevant figure for the national economy is about $47 000 per capita. In the context of that prosperity that Western Australia is driving, I can give at least four reasons that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia. The first reason is that the commonwealth’s infrastructure investment nationally is very poor compared with the states’ effort, and particularly Western Australia’s effort. Nationally, the commonwealth invests $317 per capita on infrastructure, while Western Australia invests $2 154 per capita. The second argument is this: Western Australia now gets less than its population’s share of the goods and services tax; we are getting only 9.4 per cent of the goods and services tax in this financial year. In 2010-11, we will get only 7.5 per cent of the GST compared with a more than 10 per cent share of the population. If things keep going as they are, in eight years we will get only 5.9 per cent of the GST. The third reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia is that the commonwealth reaps an enormous tax return from this state. The commonwealth collects, including GST as a commonwealth tax, $14 578 per capita in taxes in Western Australia. That might not be such a bad thing if the commonwealth spent all the money in Western Australia, but it does not. It takes $5 billion of it and spends it elsewhere; that is, $2 440 per person is taken out of this state and spent in other places. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Dawesville! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Therefore, the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia provides the rest of the Federation is the third reason that the commonwealth should invest more in this state. Mr P.D. Omodei : Like New South Wales and Victoria? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Western Australia’s economy is driving national financial health and national economic prosperity. Members need only look at the gross domestic product per capita figures. In Western Australia, the figure is more than $58 000 per capita - that is the size of our economy - whereas the relevant figure for the national economy is about $47 000 per capita. In the context of that prosperity that Western Australia is driving, I can give at least four reasons that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia. The first reason is that the commonwealth’s infrastructure investment nationally is very poor compared with the states’ effort, and particularly Western Australia’s effort. Nationally, the commonwealth invests $317 per capita on infrastructure, while Western Australia invests $2 154 per capita. The second argument is this: Western Australia now gets less than its population’s share of the goods and services tax; we are getting only 9.4 per cent of the goods and services tax in this financial year. In 2010-11, we will get only 7.5 per cent of the GST compared with a more than 10 per cent share of the population. If things keep going as they are, in eight years we will get only 5.9 per cent of the GST. The third reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia is that the commonwealth reaps an enormous tax return from this state. The commonwealth collects, including GST as a commonwealth tax, $14 578 per capita in taxes in Western Australia. That might not be such a bad thing if the commonwealth spent all the money in Western Australia, but it does not. It takes $5 billion of it and spends it elsewhere; that is, $2 440 per person is taken out of this state and spent in other places. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Dawesville! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Therefore, the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia provides the rest of the Federation is the third reason that the commonwealth should invest more in this state. Mr P.D. Omodei : Like New South Wales and Victoria? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
The second argument is this: Western Australia now gets less than its population’s share of the goods and services tax; we are getting only 9.4 per cent of the goods and services tax in this financial year. In 2010-11, we will get only 7.5 per cent of the GST compared with a more than 10 per cent share of the population. If things keep going as they are, in eight years we will get only 5.9 per cent of the GST. The third reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia is that the commonwealth reaps an enormous tax return from this state. The commonwealth collects, including GST as a commonwealth tax, $14 578 per capita in taxes in Western Australia. That might not be such a bad thing if the commonwealth spent all the money in Western Australia, but it does not. It takes $5 billion of it and spends it elsewhere; that is, $2 440 per person is taken out of this state and spent in other places. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Dawesville! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Therefore, the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia provides the rest of the Federation is the third reason that the commonwealth should invest more in this state. Mr P.D. Omodei : Like New South Wales and Victoria? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, member for Dawesville! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Therefore, the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia provides the rest of the Federation is the third reason that the commonwealth should invest more in this state. Mr P.D. Omodei : Like New South Wales and Victoria? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
The SPEAKER : Order, member for Dawesville! Mr E.S. RIPPER : Therefore, the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia provides the rest of the Federation is the third reason that the commonwealth should invest more in this state. Mr P.D. Omodei : Like New South Wales and Victoria? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Therefore, the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia provides the rest of the Federation is the third reason that the commonwealth should invest more in this state. Mr P.D. Omodei : Like New South Wales and Victoria? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Mr P.D. Omodei : Like New South Wales and Victoria? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, like New South Wales and Victoria, but our subsidy per capita, Mr Quisling, is more than New South Wales and Victoria. We have the highest per capita subsidy of any state in the rest of the Federation; therefore, it is a much more serious issue here than it is in New South Wales and Victoria. Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Let me come to the fourth reason that the commonwealth should invest in infrastructure in Western Australia; that is, it is good for the nation if Western Australian infrastructure is improved. Any corporation would reinvest its profits in its most profitable area of operation, and for the Commonwealth of Australia, the most profitable state for reinvestment is Western Australia. That should be our argument to the rest of the country: it is good for them if there is investment in Western Australian infrastructure. I have a slightly dated study here, but it is still interesting. It is a 2003 study. If it were not for the fiscal subsidy that Western Australia is compelled to offer the rest of the Federation, our economy would be seven per cent larger than it is at the moment. Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Mr P.D. Omodei : With the formula agreed to by all the states? Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Yes, the formula agreed to by Richard Court, when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet. Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Mr P.D. Omodei : Come on! Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : The Leader of the Opposition was in the cabinet that signed off on this agreement, so he bears some responsibility for this fiscal subsidy. Our economy would be seven per cent larger and the Australian economy would be larger were it not for Western Australia’s fiscal subsidy to the rest of the nation. Therefore, I say to Mr Howard and to the commonwealth government that they should invest in our infrastructure, in the interests of federal finances and the federal economy. I say to them that they should not do it in a mean and tricky way. They should not promise us 50-50, as they did with the Perth to Bunbury highway, and it turned into 25-75 when the project was reaching conclusion, and they should not ask us to increase our already large infrastructure program - $21 billion - before they even offer to help. It is in their own interests to invest in Western Australian infrastructure. Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
Dr K.D. Hames interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Dawesville to order for the first time.
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.