P4817b-4825A Hon Ken Travers
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] p4817b-4825a Hon Ken Travers APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNT) RECURRENT 2014–15 BILL 2014 APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATED ACCOUNT) CAPITAL 2014–15 BILL 2014 Cognate Debate Leave granted for the Appropriation (Consolidated Account) Recurrent 2014–15 Bill 2014 and the Appropriation (Consolidated Account) Capital 2014–15 Bill 2014 to be considered cognately. Second Reading — Cognate Debate Resumed from 25 June. HON KEN TRAVERS (North Metropolitan) [3.28 pm]: Mr President, I commence my remarks by joining in the remarks you made earlier this afternoon passing on the condolences of this chamber to the many people in not only Western Australia, but also Australia and around the world who lost family or friends on flight MH17. I concur with you in that, and I know there are a lot of people in Western Australia who were severely touched by this. An officer of the Department of Agriculture and Food was one of those people, and we should all note that; and as the shadow Minister for Agriculture and Food, I am sure that, along with the minister, we pass on all of our sympathies and condolences to the staff in the Department of Agriculture and Food who were affected and touched by this incident. Having said that, I move on to the matter before the house this afternoon—the debate on the Appropriation (Consolidated Account) Recurrent 2014–15 Bill 2014, which is to be an act to grant supply and appropriate and apply out of the consolidated account some $19 020 283 000 as supply granted for the current financial year. On top of those funds, other moneys are standing appropriations that will be spent by the Barnett government. We are concurrently debating the Appropriation (Consolidated Account) Capital 2014–15 Bill 2014, which is a bill to appropriate $2 484 968 000. Of course, that is only a small component of the capital works program, because—I am sure we will continue to have debates about this over coming years—significant money will be borrowed for the capital works program. I look forward to when we next debate a loan bill, which is something that has been rare in the past but is becoming all too frequent for the Barnett government. I want to focus heavily on my portfolio areas on behalf of the opposition. At the outset, I do not know whether I have done this formally in the chamber, but I congratulate Dean Nalder on his appointment as Minister for Transport; Finance. I have lost track of exactly how many Ministers for Transport I have now shadowed; I think it is around four. Some have been and gone and then come back, and there has been a fairly constant turnover. Hon Liz Behjat: You will always be the shadow. Hon KEN TRAVERS: Sorry, there are noises from the backbench on the other side of the chamber. The PRESIDENT: Order! It was an unruly interjection. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I wish the latest Minister for Transport for the Barnett government all the very best in the portfolio. It is a very wide-ranging and challenging portfolio. I think it is fair to say that the minster has to pick up a fair degree of mess left for him to sort out because for the past four or five years of the Barnett government, there has been no proper planning or process and the focus has been completely on the politics of issues and very little on policy. I always approach politics from the position that we have to get good policy first, and then turn that into good politics. Starting with the politics and not worrying about good policy will, over the long term, get one into deep and considerable trouble. If a party makes politics the issue at an election, post the election, the party is either left to implement poor policy outcomes, which ultimately it will always be found out on, or the party has to change its policies and break the policies it took to the electorate. My personal view is that the vast majority of people for the majority of my time in politics have been people who sought to act with integrity on the commitments and promises they have made. Sometimes circumstances change and people are forced to break their election commitments. I think that is a very different proposition from people going to an election and telling what they know to be complete lies to the electorate. Hon Nick Goiran: Is that like the carbon tax? Hon KEN TRAVERS: I think that is a perfect example, Hon Nick Goiran, in which circumstances after an election changed. I am more than happy and will talk about the carbon tax in my comments this afternoon—do not worry about that, Hon Nick Goiran! The member’s government is not showering itself with merit in that area. Circumstances change. But if a party goes to an election promising to build infrastructure that it knows it has no capacity to build and that will be useless unless it does other things first or if a party makes an issue of something such as the location of stations at the airport a key defining issue, knowing that they would be built in the wrong location, and in making that promise is deliberately lying to the people of Western Australia, they are very different things from circumstances changing. I refer to when people know the circumstances and their actions are cold and calculated. My history in this place is that that has not been the case. [1] Extract from Hansard [COUNCIL — Tuesday, 12 August 2014] p4817b-4825a Hon Ken Travers Hon Nick Goiran: That is what she said, “There will be no carbon tax.” You are somehow trying to differentiate. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I hope that if that is Hon Nick Goiran’s view of the world, when I sit down — Hon Nick Goiran: I cannot believe you don’t agree. Hon KEN TRAVERS: I put two things to Hon Nick Goiran: Prime Minister Julia Gillard said that she always wanted an emissions trading scheme and a price on carbon, and when the circumstances changed, the carbon tax was the best and only way to get that because of the intransigence of the Liberal Party, which had previously promised to bring in an emissions trading scheme, but it changed its position after misleading the people of Australia prior to the election when it said that it would support that position. Nonetheless, if Hon Nick Goiran is so outraged about that tax, I look forward to him standing in this place when I finish speaking and directing his comments to the President and railing against the clear and deliberate broken promises of the Barnett government, which clearly went to the election promising more than it could deliver on public transport and things it knew were wrong—and I promise not to interject. Let us go through some of these issues. I focus on the recurrent issues first. In the budget before us today, we have one of the most fundamental changes I have seen a government make to the way that it treats people in regional Western Australia that I have seen for a long time. I have always taken the view that we should seek to treat everybody in Western Australia equally. People who have to pay government charges should pay the same charges no matter where they live. Whether people live in Perth, Albany, Kununurra or Port Hedland, they should pay the same fee if it is to get the same government service. This budget changes all of that. I have no doubt the answer from the government will be that this is just a small amount for these matters, but it fundamentally changes the principle of universal tariffs. Of course, when the Liberal Party was in government back in the 1990s, the now Premier was very keen to get rid of universal tariffs for household electricity charges. Thankfully, a campaign led by Geoff Gallop and Eric Ripper stopped that from occurring and as a result, to this day, residential consumers of electricity pay the same no matter where they live. However, as a result of the Barnett government’s latest budget, as from 1 July this year people taking their motor vehicle in for inspection to meet the requirements of government legislation will pay different amounts depending upon where they live. For example, people living in Port Hedland will have to pay 19 per cent more than what people in Perth pay. People in Kununurra will pay 15 per cent more, and in Geraldton and the goldfields, 4.5 per cent more. I think that is absolutely outrageous and it is my intention at a later stage to seek to move a motion of disallowance of the regulations that allow that to happen. I give members notice now to go away and start thinking about this, and about whether they actually believe that people in regional Western Australia should not be treated equally, and should have to pay a fee for the delivery of government services based on cost recovery. Where does it stop? Do we charge a boat owner in Dampier more than we charge a boat owner in Perth? We could go on and on. Do we charge people greater motor vehicle licence fees because they have longer roads in the Pilbara and Kimberley? This is a fundamental change, and I think it is something that everyone in this house should be incredibly concerned about. I can assure members that Hon Darren West, Hon Stephen Dawson and I will be campaigning long and hard on this.