❓ The Treasurer defends government spending by highlighting opposition members' requests for increased funding in various sectors, questioning the Leader of the Opposition's ability to enforce spending restraint within his own party.
AnsweredQoN 171Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to yesterday’s complaint by the Leader of the Opposition about alleged government expenditure. Has the Treasurer recently been asked to increase expenditure in any interesting areas? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Perth for his question. It is true that demands have been made from different sections of the community for increased spending in a wide variety of areas. The government has responded to those demands. On the back of Western Australia’s stellar economic performance, the government has significantly increased expenditure in health and education and for the Police Service and other critical infrastructure. Although the Leader of the Opposition appears to support spending restraint - at least for one question in one question time - he cannot restrain his colleagues. Let us take a look at a few examples. The member for Dawesville has a you-beaut hospital wheeze. I quote Hansard of 28 April - More beds are needed. It is not a costly exercise. If the government combines the cost of building a new wing at Royal Perth Hospital, doing the expansions at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and building a new Fiona Stanley hospital, it will be about the same cost as building the rail to Mandurah. He says it is not a costly exercise - it is only $1.5 billion! He would have us spending the equivalent of the Mandurah rail line expenditure on his pet hospital project. Perhaps the opposition would rather we spent that money on the environment. The member for Leschenault on 27 April, just a day before the comments of the member for Dawesville, said that the government’s commitment of $50 000 for remedial activity in the Leschenault inlet and estuary was “a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed”. He said further, “A lot of money must be allocated.” Perhaps members opposite want us to spend the money on prisons, which is what the member for Hillarys wants. He does not shrink from hyperbole: he accused the government of putting people’s lives at risk for the sake of a few bucks. He said to the Premier on 30 March, “. . . the Premier also must fund the prison system properly.” Mr M.J. Birney : What’s wrong with that? Mr E.S. RIPPER : All these comments were made in the past couple of months. What is wrong with that, Leader of the Opposition, is that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition is calling for expenditure restraint, yet the member for Hillarys is calling for more money to be spent. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s posturing, the opposition is at it again: I refer to the $500 million in unfunded commitments that we had to fund when we came to office and the $10 billion of unfunded opposition commitments made in the lead-up to the recent election. Today, we have a rabble of shadow minister spendthrifts. As far as this lot are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is a challenge here for the Leader of the Opposition: if he cannot lead his own shadow ministers and restrain their spending demands, how can he with any credibility preach restraint to the government?
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I thank the member for Perth for his question. It is true that demands have been made from different sections of the community for increased spending in a wide variety of areas. The government has responded to those demands. On the back of Western Australia’s stellar economic performance, the government has significantly increased expenditure in health and education and for the Police Service and other critical infrastructure. Although the Leader of the Opposition appears to support spending restraint - at least for one question in one question time - he cannot restrain his colleagues. Let us take a look at a few examples. The member for Dawesville has a you-beaut hospital wheeze. I quote Hansard of 28 April - More beds are needed. It is not a costly exercise. If the government combines the cost of building a new wing at Royal Perth Hospital, doing the expansions at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and building a new Fiona Stanley hospital, it will be about the same cost as building the rail to Mandurah. He says it is not a costly exercise - it is only $1.5 billion! He would have us spending the equivalent of the Mandurah rail line expenditure on his pet hospital project. Perhaps the opposition would rather we spent that money on the environment. The member for Leschenault on 27 April, just a day before the comments of the member for Dawesville, said that the government’s commitment of $50 000 for remedial activity in the Leschenault inlet and estuary was “a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed”. He said further, “A lot of money must be allocated.” Perhaps members opposite want us to spend the money on prisons, which is what the member for Hillarys wants. He does not shrink from hyperbole: he accused the government of putting people’s lives at risk for the sake of a few bucks. He said to the Premier on 30 March, “. . . the Premier also must fund the prison system properly.” Mr M.J. Birney : What’s wrong with that? Mr E.S. RIPPER : All these comments were made in the past couple of months. What is wrong with that, Leader of the Opposition, is that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition is calling for expenditure restraint, yet the member for Hillarys is calling for more money to be spent. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s posturing, the opposition is at it again: I refer to the $500 million in unfunded commitments that we had to fund when we came to office and the $10 billion of unfunded opposition commitments made in the lead-up to the recent election. Today, we have a rabble of shadow minister spendthrifts. As far as this lot are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is a challenge here for the Leader of the Opposition: if he cannot lead his own shadow ministers and restrain their spending demands, how can he with any credibility preach restraint to the government?
I thank the member for Perth for his question. It is true that demands have been made from different sections of the community for increased spending in a wide variety of areas. The government has responded to those demands. On the back of Western Australia’s stellar economic performance, the government has significantly increased expenditure in health and education and for the Police Service and other critical infrastructure. Although the Leader of the Opposition appears to support spending restraint - at least for one question in one question time - he cannot restrain his colleagues. Let us take a look at a few examples. The member for Dawesville has a you-beaut hospital wheeze. I quote Hansard of 28 April - More beds are needed. It is not a costly exercise. If the government combines the cost of building a new wing at Royal Perth Hospital, doing the expansions at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and building a new Fiona Stanley hospital, it will be about the same cost as building the rail to Mandurah. He says it is not a costly exercise - it is only $1.5 billion! He would have us spending the equivalent of the Mandurah rail line expenditure on his pet hospital project. Perhaps the opposition would rather we spent that money on the environment. The member for Leschenault on 27 April, just a day before the comments of the member for Dawesville, said that the government’s commitment of $50 000 for remedial activity in the Leschenault inlet and estuary was “a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed”. He said further, “A lot of money must be allocated.” Perhaps members opposite want us to spend the money on prisons, which is what the member for Hillarys wants. He does not shrink from hyperbole: he accused the government of putting people’s lives at risk for the sake of a few bucks. He said to the Premier on 30 March, “. . . the Premier also must fund the prison system properly.” Mr M.J. Birney : What’s wrong with that? Mr E.S. RIPPER : All these comments were made in the past couple of months. What is wrong with that, Leader of the Opposition, is that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition is calling for expenditure restraint, yet the member for Hillarys is calling for more money to be spent. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s posturing, the opposition is at it again: I refer to the $500 million in unfunded commitments that we had to fund when we came to office and the $10 billion of unfunded opposition commitments made in the lead-up to the recent election. Today, we have a rabble of shadow minister spendthrifts. As far as this lot are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is a challenge here for the Leader of the Opposition: if he cannot lead his own shadow ministers and restrain their spending demands, how can he with any credibility preach restraint to the government?
The member for Dawesville has a you-beaut hospital wheeze. I quote Hansard of 28 April - More beds are needed. It is not a costly exercise. If the government combines the cost of building a new wing at Royal Perth Hospital, doing the expansions at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and building a new Fiona Stanley hospital, it will be about the same cost as building the rail to Mandurah. He says it is not a costly exercise - it is only $1.5 billion! He would have us spending the equivalent of the Mandurah rail line expenditure on his pet hospital project. Perhaps the opposition would rather we spent that money on the environment. The member for Leschenault on 27 April, just a day before the comments of the member for Dawesville, said that the government’s commitment of $50 000 for remedial activity in the Leschenault inlet and estuary was “a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed”. He said further, “A lot of money must be allocated.” Perhaps members opposite want us to spend the money on prisons, which is what the member for Hillarys wants. He does not shrink from hyperbole: he accused the government of putting people’s lives at risk for the sake of a few bucks. He said to the Premier on 30 March, “. . . the Premier also must fund the prison system properly.” Mr M.J. Birney : What’s wrong with that? Mr E.S. RIPPER : All these comments were made in the past couple of months. What is wrong with that, Leader of the Opposition, is that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition is calling for expenditure restraint, yet the member for Hillarys is calling for more money to be spent. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s posturing, the opposition is at it again: I refer to the $500 million in unfunded commitments that we had to fund when we came to office and the $10 billion of unfunded opposition commitments made in the lead-up to the recent election. Today, we have a rabble of shadow minister spendthrifts. As far as this lot are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is a challenge here for the Leader of the Opposition: if he cannot lead his own shadow ministers and restrain their spending demands, how can he with any credibility preach restraint to the government?
More beds are needed. It is not a costly exercise. If the government combines the cost of building a new wing at Royal Perth Hospital, doing the expansions at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and building a new Fiona Stanley hospital, it will be about the same cost as building the rail to Mandurah. He says it is not a costly exercise - it is only $1.5 billion! He would have us spending the equivalent of the Mandurah rail line expenditure on his pet hospital project. Perhaps the opposition would rather we spent that money on the environment. The member for Leschenault on 27 April, just a day before the comments of the member for Dawesville, said that the government’s commitment of $50 000 for remedial activity in the Leschenault inlet and estuary was “a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed”. He said further, “A lot of money must be allocated.” Perhaps members opposite want us to spend the money on prisons, which is what the member for Hillarys wants. He does not shrink from hyperbole: he accused the government of putting people’s lives at risk for the sake of a few bucks. He said to the Premier on 30 March, “. . . the Premier also must fund the prison system properly.” Mr M.J. Birney : What’s wrong with that? Mr E.S. RIPPER : All these comments were made in the past couple of months. What is wrong with that, Leader of the Opposition, is that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition is calling for expenditure restraint, yet the member for Hillarys is calling for more money to be spent. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s posturing, the opposition is at it again: I refer to the $500 million in unfunded commitments that we had to fund when we came to office and the $10 billion of unfunded opposition commitments made in the lead-up to the recent election. Today, we have a rabble of shadow minister spendthrifts. As far as this lot are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is a challenge here for the Leader of the Opposition: if he cannot lead his own shadow ministers and restrain their spending demands, how can he with any credibility preach restraint to the government?
He says it is not a costly exercise - it is only $1.5 billion! He would have us spending the equivalent of the Mandurah rail line expenditure on his pet hospital project. Perhaps the opposition would rather we spent that money on the environment. The member for Leschenault on 27 April, just a day before the comments of the member for Dawesville, said that the government’s commitment of $50 000 for remedial activity in the Leschenault inlet and estuary was “a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed”. He said further, “A lot of money must be allocated.” Perhaps members opposite want us to spend the money on prisons, which is what the member for Hillarys wants. He does not shrink from hyperbole: he accused the government of putting people’s lives at risk for the sake of a few bucks. He said to the Premier on 30 March, “. . . the Premier also must fund the prison system properly.” Mr M.J. Birney : What’s wrong with that? Mr E.S. RIPPER : All these comments were made in the past couple of months. What is wrong with that, Leader of the Opposition, is that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition is calling for expenditure restraint, yet the member for Hillarys is calling for more money to be spent. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s posturing, the opposition is at it again: I refer to the $500 million in unfunded commitments that we had to fund when we came to office and the $10 billion of unfunded opposition commitments made in the lead-up to the recent election. Today, we have a rabble of shadow minister spendthrifts. As far as this lot are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is a challenge here for the Leader of the Opposition: if he cannot lead his own shadow ministers and restrain their spending demands, how can he with any credibility preach restraint to the government?
Perhaps the opposition would rather we spent that money on the environment. The member for Leschenault on 27 April, just a day before the comments of the member for Dawesville, said that the government’s commitment of $50 000 for remedial activity in the Leschenault inlet and estuary was “a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed”. He said further, “A lot of money must be allocated.” Perhaps members opposite want us to spend the money on prisons, which is what the member for Hillarys wants. He does not shrink from hyperbole: he accused the government of putting people’s lives at risk for the sake of a few bucks. He said to the Premier on 30 March, “. . . the Premier also must fund the prison system properly.” Mr M.J. Birney : What’s wrong with that? Mr E.S. RIPPER : All these comments were made in the past couple of months. What is wrong with that, Leader of the Opposition, is that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition is calling for expenditure restraint, yet the member for Hillarys is calling for more money to be spent. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s posturing, the opposition is at it again: I refer to the $500 million in unfunded commitments that we had to fund when we came to office and the $10 billion of unfunded opposition commitments made in the lead-up to the recent election. Today, we have a rabble of shadow minister spendthrifts. As far as this lot are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is a challenge here for the Leader of the Opposition: if he cannot lead his own shadow ministers and restrain their spending demands, how can he with any credibility preach restraint to the government?
Mr M.J. Birney : What’s wrong with that? Mr E.S. RIPPER : All these comments were made in the past couple of months. What is wrong with that, Leader of the Opposition, is that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition is calling for expenditure restraint, yet the member for Hillarys is calling for more money to be spent. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s posturing, the opposition is at it again: I refer to the $500 million in unfunded commitments that we had to fund when we came to office and the $10 billion of unfunded opposition commitments made in the lead-up to the recent election. Today, we have a rabble of shadow minister spendthrifts. As far as this lot are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is a challenge here for the Leader of the Opposition: if he cannot lead his own shadow ministers and restrain their spending demands, how can he with any credibility preach restraint to the government?
Mr E.S. RIPPER : All these comments were made in the past couple of months. What is wrong with that, Leader of the Opposition, is that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition is calling for expenditure restraint, yet the member for Hillarys is calling for more money to be spent. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s posturing, the opposition is at it again: I refer to the $500 million in unfunded commitments that we had to fund when we came to office and the $10 billion of unfunded opposition commitments made in the lead-up to the recent election. Today, we have a rabble of shadow minister spendthrifts. As far as this lot are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is a challenge here for the Leader of the Opposition: if he cannot lead his own shadow ministers and restrain their spending demands, how can he with any credibility preach restraint to the government?
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I thank the member for Perth for his question. It is true that demands have been made from different sections of the community for increased spending in a wide variety of areas. The government has responded to those demands. On the back of Western Australia’s stellar economic performance, the government has significantly increased expenditure in health and education and for the Police Service and other critical infrastructure. Although the Leader of the Opposition appears to support spending restraint - at least for one question in one question time - he cannot restrain his colleagues. Let us take a look at a few examples. The member for Dawesville has a you-beaut hospital wheeze. I quote Hansard of 28 April - More beds are needed. It is not a costly exercise. If the government combines the cost of building a new wing at Royal Perth Hospital, doing the expansions at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and building a new Fiona Stanley hospital, it will be about the same cost as building the rail to Mandurah. He says it is not a costly exercise - it is only $1.5 billion! He would have us spending the equivalent of the Mandurah rail line expenditure on his pet hospital project. Perhaps the opposition would rather we spent that money on the environment. The member for Leschenault on 27 April, just a day before the comments of the member for Dawesville, said that the government’s commitment of $50 000 for remedial activity in the Leschenault inlet and estuary was “a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed”. He said further, “A lot of money must be allocated.” Perhaps members opposite want us to spend the money on prisons, which is what the member for Hillarys wants. He does not shrink from hyperbole: he accused the government of putting people’s lives at risk for the sake of a few bucks. He said to the Premier on 30 March, “. . . the Premier also must fund the prison system properly.” Mr M.J. Birney : What’s wrong with that? Mr E.S. RIPPER : All these comments were made in the past couple of months. What is wrong with that, Leader of the Opposition, is that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition is calling for expenditure restraint, yet the member for Hillarys is calling for more money to be spent. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s posturing, the opposition is at it again: I refer to the $500 million in unfunded commitments that we had to fund when we came to office and the $10 billion of unfunded opposition commitments made in the lead-up to the recent election. Today, we have a rabble of shadow minister spendthrifts. As far as this lot are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is a challenge here for the Leader of the Opposition: if he cannot lead his own shadow ministers and restrain their spending demands, how can he with any credibility preach restraint to the government?
I thank the member for Perth for his question. It is true that demands have been made from different sections of the community for increased spending in a wide variety of areas. The government has responded to those demands. On the back of Western Australia’s stellar economic performance, the government has significantly increased expenditure in health and education and for the Police Service and other critical infrastructure. Although the Leader of the Opposition appears to support spending restraint - at least for one question in one question time - he cannot restrain his colleagues. Let us take a look at a few examples. The member for Dawesville has a you-beaut hospital wheeze. I quote Hansard of 28 April - More beds are needed. It is not a costly exercise. If the government combines the cost of building a new wing at Royal Perth Hospital, doing the expansions at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and building a new Fiona Stanley hospital, it will be about the same cost as building the rail to Mandurah. He says it is not a costly exercise - it is only $1.5 billion! He would have us spending the equivalent of the Mandurah rail line expenditure on his pet hospital project. Perhaps the opposition would rather we spent that money on the environment. The member for Leschenault on 27 April, just a day before the comments of the member for Dawesville, said that the government’s commitment of $50 000 for remedial activity in the Leschenault inlet and estuary was “a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed”. He said further, “A lot of money must be allocated.” Perhaps members opposite want us to spend the money on prisons, which is what the member for Hillarys wants. He does not shrink from hyperbole: he accused the government of putting people’s lives at risk for the sake of a few bucks. He said to the Premier on 30 March, “. . . the Premier also must fund the prison system properly.” Mr M.J. Birney : What’s wrong with that? Mr E.S. RIPPER : All these comments were made in the past couple of months. What is wrong with that, Leader of the Opposition, is that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition is calling for expenditure restraint, yet the member for Hillarys is calling for more money to be spent. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s posturing, the opposition is at it again: I refer to the $500 million in unfunded commitments that we had to fund when we came to office and the $10 billion of unfunded opposition commitments made in the lead-up to the recent election. Today, we have a rabble of shadow minister spendthrifts. As far as this lot are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is a challenge here for the Leader of the Opposition: if he cannot lead his own shadow ministers and restrain their spending demands, how can he with any credibility preach restraint to the government?
The member for Dawesville has a you-beaut hospital wheeze. I quote Hansard of 28 April - More beds are needed. It is not a costly exercise. If the government combines the cost of building a new wing at Royal Perth Hospital, doing the expansions at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and building a new Fiona Stanley hospital, it will be about the same cost as building the rail to Mandurah. He says it is not a costly exercise - it is only $1.5 billion! He would have us spending the equivalent of the Mandurah rail line expenditure on his pet hospital project. Perhaps the opposition would rather we spent that money on the environment. The member for Leschenault on 27 April, just a day before the comments of the member for Dawesville, said that the government’s commitment of $50 000 for remedial activity in the Leschenault inlet and estuary was “a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed”. He said further, “A lot of money must be allocated.” Perhaps members opposite want us to spend the money on prisons, which is what the member for Hillarys wants. He does not shrink from hyperbole: he accused the government of putting people’s lives at risk for the sake of a few bucks. He said to the Premier on 30 March, “. . . the Premier also must fund the prison system properly.” Mr M.J. Birney : What’s wrong with that? Mr E.S. RIPPER : All these comments were made in the past couple of months. What is wrong with that, Leader of the Opposition, is that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition is calling for expenditure restraint, yet the member for Hillarys is calling for more money to be spent. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s posturing, the opposition is at it again: I refer to the $500 million in unfunded commitments that we had to fund when we came to office and the $10 billion of unfunded opposition commitments made in the lead-up to the recent election. Today, we have a rabble of shadow minister spendthrifts. As far as this lot are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is a challenge here for the Leader of the Opposition: if he cannot lead his own shadow ministers and restrain their spending demands, how can he with any credibility preach restraint to the government?
More beds are needed. It is not a costly exercise. If the government combines the cost of building a new wing at Royal Perth Hospital, doing the expansions at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and building a new Fiona Stanley hospital, it will be about the same cost as building the rail to Mandurah. He says it is not a costly exercise - it is only $1.5 billion! He would have us spending the equivalent of the Mandurah rail line expenditure on his pet hospital project. Perhaps the opposition would rather we spent that money on the environment. The member for Leschenault on 27 April, just a day before the comments of the member for Dawesville, said that the government’s commitment of $50 000 for remedial activity in the Leschenault inlet and estuary was “a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed”. He said further, “A lot of money must be allocated.” Perhaps members opposite want us to spend the money on prisons, which is what the member for Hillarys wants. He does not shrink from hyperbole: he accused the government of putting people’s lives at risk for the sake of a few bucks. He said to the Premier on 30 March, “. . . the Premier also must fund the prison system properly.” Mr M.J. Birney : What’s wrong with that? Mr E.S. RIPPER : All these comments were made in the past couple of months. What is wrong with that, Leader of the Opposition, is that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition is calling for expenditure restraint, yet the member for Hillarys is calling for more money to be spent. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s posturing, the opposition is at it again: I refer to the $500 million in unfunded commitments that we had to fund when we came to office and the $10 billion of unfunded opposition commitments made in the lead-up to the recent election. Today, we have a rabble of shadow minister spendthrifts. As far as this lot are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is a challenge here for the Leader of the Opposition: if he cannot lead his own shadow ministers and restrain their spending demands, how can he with any credibility preach restraint to the government?
He says it is not a costly exercise - it is only $1.5 billion! He would have us spending the equivalent of the Mandurah rail line expenditure on his pet hospital project. Perhaps the opposition would rather we spent that money on the environment. The member for Leschenault on 27 April, just a day before the comments of the member for Dawesville, said that the government’s commitment of $50 000 for remedial activity in the Leschenault inlet and estuary was “a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed”. He said further, “A lot of money must be allocated.” Perhaps members opposite want us to spend the money on prisons, which is what the member for Hillarys wants. He does not shrink from hyperbole: he accused the government of putting people’s lives at risk for the sake of a few bucks. He said to the Premier on 30 March, “. . . the Premier also must fund the prison system properly.” Mr M.J. Birney : What’s wrong with that? Mr E.S. RIPPER : All these comments were made in the past couple of months. What is wrong with that, Leader of the Opposition, is that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition is calling for expenditure restraint, yet the member for Hillarys is calling for more money to be spent. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s posturing, the opposition is at it again: I refer to the $500 million in unfunded commitments that we had to fund when we came to office and the $10 billion of unfunded opposition commitments made in the lead-up to the recent election. Today, we have a rabble of shadow minister spendthrifts. As far as this lot are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is a challenge here for the Leader of the Opposition: if he cannot lead his own shadow ministers and restrain their spending demands, how can he with any credibility preach restraint to the government?
Perhaps the opposition would rather we spent that money on the environment. The member for Leschenault on 27 April, just a day before the comments of the member for Dawesville, said that the government’s commitment of $50 000 for remedial activity in the Leschenault inlet and estuary was “a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed”. He said further, “A lot of money must be allocated.” Perhaps members opposite want us to spend the money on prisons, which is what the member for Hillarys wants. He does not shrink from hyperbole: he accused the government of putting people’s lives at risk for the sake of a few bucks. He said to the Premier on 30 March, “. . . the Premier also must fund the prison system properly.” Mr M.J. Birney : What’s wrong with that? Mr E.S. RIPPER : All these comments were made in the past couple of months. What is wrong with that, Leader of the Opposition, is that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition is calling for expenditure restraint, yet the member for Hillarys is calling for more money to be spent. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s posturing, the opposition is at it again: I refer to the $500 million in unfunded commitments that we had to fund when we came to office and the $10 billion of unfunded opposition commitments made in the lead-up to the recent election. Today, we have a rabble of shadow minister spendthrifts. As far as this lot are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is a challenge here for the Leader of the Opposition: if he cannot lead his own shadow ministers and restrain their spending demands, how can he with any credibility preach restraint to the government?
Mr M.J. Birney : What’s wrong with that? Mr E.S. RIPPER : All these comments were made in the past couple of months. What is wrong with that, Leader of the Opposition, is that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition is calling for expenditure restraint, yet the member for Hillarys is calling for more money to be spent. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s posturing, the opposition is at it again: I refer to the $500 million in unfunded commitments that we had to fund when we came to office and the $10 billion of unfunded opposition commitments made in the lead-up to the recent election. Today, we have a rabble of shadow minister spendthrifts. As far as this lot are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is a challenge here for the Leader of the Opposition: if he cannot lead his own shadow ministers and restrain their spending demands, how can he with any credibility preach restraint to the government?
Mr E.S. RIPPER : All these comments were made in the past couple of months. What is wrong with that, Leader of the Opposition, is that, on the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition is calling for expenditure restraint, yet the member for Hillarys is calling for more money to be spent. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s posturing, the opposition is at it again: I refer to the $500 million in unfunded commitments that we had to fund when we came to office and the $10 billion of unfunded opposition commitments made in the lead-up to the recent election. Today, we have a rabble of shadow minister spendthrifts. As far as this lot are concerned, the more things change, the more they stay the same. There is a challenge here for the Leader of the Opposition: if he cannot lead his own shadow ministers and restrain their spending demands, how can he with any credibility preach restraint to the government?
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.