Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make some comments on the outcome of the Western Australian state election of 11 March in which the Labor Party convincingly won that election. I want to go back to 2008, when I was a candidate myself in the then state election 8½ years ago, and reflect on the reason why the Liberal Party, together with the National Party, ultimately won that election. The question asked by us was: 'What had Labor done in government in the last number of years?' The answer was: 'Nobody could answer the question.' And that is why we swept to victory. The corollary to that was the then Treasurer, Mr Ripper, very proudly said that he did not leave much of a deficit or debt. That was because he did not do anything. One of the highlights is the fact that the only active minister at that time, Minister Alannah MacTiernan, is now back in the Western Australian cabinet, so we can hopefully expect that at least one of the previously failed ministers might be able to achieve something, because then Ms MacTiernan from the other place, now Minister MacTiernan, was indeed a very effective minister.

What I also want to reflect on is that Mr Colin Barnett had made the decision in 2008, after a stellar career in politics in Western Australia, to retire. History records that he delayed that decision, and for the next 8½ years he led a very, very successful government in the state of Western Australia. What is not understood is that in those 8½ years more than the population equivalent of Tasmania, more than 500,000 people, came into Western Australia. Barnett was an outstanding premier. He was a decision maker. Yes, it is the case that debt was run up during that time. As you would know, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, you were on polling booths as I was, the interesting point in that election was that everyone came to associate debt with toxic debt—the Gillard memorial halls, the $900 cheques of Mr Rudd and, regrettably, the pink batts. Everyone was associating debt with bad debt. What did Barnett do in his time as premier? He created assets for the state of Western Australia. When somebody said to me, 'There's too much debt,' I said: 'Which of the hospitals didn't you want built or refurbished in the country and in the city? Which of the road systems didn't you want built? Which of the schools didn't you want built? Which of the other infrastructure projects for which that state has now been set up so well didn't you want?' There is the underground railway. It has taken 100 years for someone to do it. There is the Elizabeth Quay development. I said to somebody the other day that in terms of assets versus liabilities Barnett spent $400 million to bring the river back up to the city, but he has already made $390 million of the $400 million back in land sales. That is what debt is when it is creates assets. Regrettably, of course, the people of Western Australia saw the fact that debt had been built up. They failed to acknowledge that it was debt on the construction of assets.

Barnett was my minister when I was running a government trading enterprise in the early 1990s. He did not tolerate fools, which is probably the reason why he and I got on so well. I wish him well in whatever role he now takes. If it is back in Toodyay, with his sheep, I will once again be wanting to know the names of the sheep, as I have asked him so often.

I also now want to draw attention to what I believe was the other factor related to the Liberal Party losing the election, and that is Western Australia's share of GST. It is a factor. When I came into this parliament in 2009, we were getting 88c back in every dollar that Western Australia contributed. The 88c went down to 78c, 68c, 55c, 45c and 38c in the dollar, and eventually it got to 30c in the dollar. What did that cost the people of Western Australia? We lost $4.2 billion in GST this year that should have come to WA. Our deficit was $3.9 billion. Remember: $4.2 billion should have come back in and $3.9 billion was the deficit. Put one against the other and there should be a $300 million surplus. What does that relate to? As Judith Sloan eloquently said the other day—and you and I know this, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, as indeed would the Deputy President, who is in the chamber—for every dollar that Western Australia contributes at the moment we get 30c back. That means every man, woman and child in WA hands over $1,736 to the other states and territories. Let's turn that around, Senator Farrell, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Every South Australian—man, woman and child—gets $1,052 bonus. Every Tasmanian, to Senator Urquhart, gets $1,950. Remember: Western Australians are paying $1,700. Every Northern Territorian gets $10,734. And not to be left out, Senator Seselja, here in the Australian Capital Territory, with the highest incomes and the lowest unemployment in the nation, every ACT resident gets $400 from the largesse of the Western Australian economy and community.

I congratulate Mr Ben Wyatt, who is the new Treasurer. I know that I am going to step on a few toes here, but at least it is a view that I have, and I share it, and that is that Mr Wyatt is not beholden to the union movement. I make the point—quite fairly, I believe—that so many of the ministers in the new government are themselves from the union movement. You know as well as I do, Mr Acting Deputy President, those have come calling since Mr McGowan has been made the Premier. It is interesting that in my first speech, on St Patrick's Day in 2009, I made comment of Mr Ben Wyatt because he was the shadow Treasurer and a fellow Old Aquinian. At that time, all of the other treasurers of Australia had gotten together around COAG and had excluded the Western Australian Treasurer. It was then that shadow Treasurer Ben Wyatt shared the state Treasurer's disappointment, ' particularly in light of the fact that many of the other states have been enjoying the benefits of Western Australia's largesse'. The now-Treasurer Ben Wyatt went on to say:

The States can't successfully come to a common position in negotiations with the Commonwealth when they ignore the State with the fastest economic growth …

So I do congratulate Ben Wyatt. He and his relation Ken Wyatt are making a great contribution to state and federal politics in this country.

I make the observation about the sham bid by Mr Stephen Smith at about this time last year, on 14 March 2016. We were asked to believe the elder statesmen John Halden, a friend of mine; Chris Evans, a previous leader of the government here in this place; and Stephen Smith, a past foreign minister apparently decided to confect an opposition to leader McGowan. Anybody who believed that must have believed in the Easter bunny that came along the next Friday. As if three elder statesmen of the Labor Party in WA would stand up and genuinely want to oppose the leader. We all know why they did it: Mark McGowan at the time was seen as being weak and ineffectual, and the only way to make him into a leader was to seem to oppose him. And they did—I will say that—and it was a successful exercise. Stephen Smith, despite every hard effort, was thrust to one side by the Labor caucus, leaving Mr McGowan unopposed as the leader of the future.

It is absolutely critically important in my view to reflect on the continuing importance of the Western Australian economy to the national economy. Yes, it is the case that the construction phases of the major projects have come to a close or are winding down. That is the case. Gorgon is two-thirds complete. Wheatstone will soon go to their first production of LNG. Roy Hill, the big iron ore mine of the Rinehart Group, is now complete. We know of the excellence of the big construction projects.

It is the case that royalty income to the state of Western Australia did decline and because we have this lag in the grants commission process we found a circumstance in which Western Australia's share of GST declined. When it was established by Costello, Howard and the premiers and chief ministers of the time, nobody believed that one state would get back 30 cents out of every dollar, and that matter has got to be addressed. Whether it is through resources sharing or whether it is through a formula that says the states and territories should be held to account for the capacity to earn revenue and to contain expenditure and to be rewarded or penalised against that, something has got to happen to the grants commission process.