Treasurer's Advance Authorisation Bill 2025
Notice of motion to introduce
Resolved, on motion by Mr David Michael (Leader of the House):
That bill notice of motion 2 be postponed to a later stage of this day's sitting.
Standing orders suspension
Mr David Michael (Balcatta—Leader of the House) (12:19 pm): I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as is necessary to enable the Treasurer's Advance Authorisation Bill 2025 to be dealt with while the Address-in-Reply has priority, and for the bill to proceed without delay between the stages.
Ms Libby Mettam (Vasse—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:19 pm) : The opposition will be supporting the suspension of standing orders to accommodate the Treasurer's Advance Authorisation Bill 2025, which will advance, as I understand it, an additional $1.93 billion to make the Treasurer's advance limit just over $3 billion. The Treasurer's advance is set by the Financial Management Act 2006.
This is the most significantly resourced government in terms of revenue and its sheer number of members in this house. We note the extraordinary efforts made to advance this bill and to suspend standings orders in this way. Our shadow Treasurer was given 48 hours' notice to be briefed on the bill and the motion moved in this place to enable us to debate the bill ahead of inaugural speeches. The opposition will approach this piece of legislation in the same manner in which it will approach all legislation—that is, an approach that is in the best interests of Western Australians. We understand that this legislation as proposed by the government will enable the services of government to go forward, which is why we support the suspension of standing orders. Our shadow Treasurer, as well as other opposition members, will ask some fair questions about the bill. We do not intend to hold up the legislation any further than is necessary, but we will give it proper scrutiny, albeit given its rushed manner and the short notice we have had. I will leave my comments there. We support the suspension of standing orders and look forward to debate on the bill.
Mr David Michael (Balcatta—Leader of the House) (12:22 pm) in reply: I thank the manager of opposition business for supporting the suspension motion. Obviously, bills like this in the past, whether loan bills or Treasury bills, have been normal in this chamber, with at least one or two of them being debated a year. This is no different. It will enable the machinery of Treasury to get on with providing services for Western Australians. In terms of the timing of this bill, the main reason the government wants to deal with it now is so that it can get going and provide student assistance payments for Western Australian families with kids at school across the state. We know how successful it was last time. I am sure that the member for Vasse knows how very important it is to local families within her electorate to get this going. That is the reason we are doing the bill this week. I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her support of the suspension motion.
Question put and passed.
Introduction and first reading
Bill introduced, on motion by Ms Rita Saffioti (Treasurer), and read a first time.
Explanatory memorandum presented by the Treasurer.
Second reading speech
Ms Rita Saffioti (West Swan—Treasurer) (12:23 pm): I move:
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill seeks to increase the Treasurer's advance limit for 2024–25 by $1.93 billion from the currently approved limit of $1.08 billion to $3.01 billion.
The Treasurer's advance authorises the Treasurer to draw funds from the consolidated account for amounts that were not factored into the budget appropriation acts. This allows for the release of central funding for items that exceed the appropriated budget or new items that have been determined as needing to be reflected in the current year that emerged after the budget bills were introduced to Parliament. It also provides for short-term repayable advances to agencies for working capital and similar purposes.
The annual Treasurer's advance limit is set automatically by section 29(1) of the Financial Management Act 2006 and is calculated as 3% of the amount appropriated in the previous financial year. For 2024–25, this equates to a Treasurer's advance limit of $1.08 billion. If this automatic limit proves insufficient, section 29(3) of the FMA allows the Treasurer's advance limit to be increased by way of a Treasurer's advance authorisation act.
The 2024–25 Pre-election Financial Projections Statement projected that a total of $2.51 billion is expected to be drawn against recoverable advances, excesses and new items in 2024–25, exceeding the currently approved Treasurer's advance limit. Details of all expected drawdowns against the 2024–25 Treasurer's advance were disclosed in appendix 4 of the 2024–25 Pre-election Financial Projections Statement and the 2024–25 Government Mid-year Financial Projections Statement. The most significant components of the $2.51 billion forecast to be drawn against the Treasurer's advance include a $469.7 million funding increase for Synergy, primarily to deliver the Commonwealth government's electricity rebates to households and eligible small businesses; additional funding of $416.2 million for WA Health, mainly to support higher activity funding to address price-related pressures and service expansion in hospitals; and $321.9 million for the Department of Communities, primarily to meet increased demand for key services, particularly in the child protection system, as well as to deliver additional affordable and social housing dwellings.
The approval of the appropriation for the items outlined in the 2024–25 Pre-election Financial Projections Statement will not change the state's fiscal outlook as the financial impacts have already been reflected in that publication. Consistent with previous bills, allowance is also made for any additional appropriation funding that could materialise by 30 June 2025 either through the 2025–26 budget process or other unforeseen cashflow requirements, such as funding emergency support for natural disasters. It is anticipated that the proposed increase to the Treasurer's advance will provide sufficient capacity for the government to respond to emerging issues for the remainder of 2024–25.
As with all previous bills, the increase in the Treasurer's advance provides the authority to meet higher funding requirements, but it does not commit the state to any other additional spending. However, the Cook Labor government has flagged that it intends to use funds authorised through the Treasurer's advance to enable the payment of the second round of the WA student assistance payment in term 2 of this year. The passage of the bill in this timeframe is necessary to enable the government to deliver this cost-of-living assistance to WA families this financial year. Any unspent capacity on the Treasurer's advance will lapse on 30 June 2025, with actual expenditure to be reported in the 2024–25 Annual Report on State Finances, which is to be released in September 2025.
As the authority for the release of excess funding needs to be in place before any such funds can be drawn during the remainder of 2024–25, the passage of the bill is required as soon as possible. This urgency reflects the later-than-usual resumption of Parliament this year as a result of the state election.
I commend the bill to the house.
Second reading
Ms Sandra Brewer (Cottesloe) (12:30 pm): Good afternoon. It is my honour to be elected as the member for Cottesloe, and I thank the people of the electorate for placing their faith in me.
Though I rise as the shadow Treasurer on behalf of the opposition to speak on this bill, it is disappointing that I have not had the opportunity to introduce myself properly to members in an inaugural speech. Perhaps the most some members know about me is that I was the Executive Director of the Property Council of Australia, Western Australian Division. That is just one small element of a life filled with experiences that include the tragic, the joyous and the momentous. But members will have to wait another day to hear all about that as the Treasurer has an insatiable desire to spend the money of Western Australian taxpayers. So, here we are.
In considering this bill to advance just over $3 billion to the government, I want to put on the record that the first time I saw the bill was around 12:30 pm on Monday and a briefing was provided at 2:45 pm. Much fuss has been made of the fact that many on the opposition benches are new to this place, and we are proud to be new. I would have anticipated a professional courtesy would be to provide a briefing with sufficient notice. Coming from the corporate sector, a board being asked to support an advance of such a significant sum would rightly expect at least seven business days to consider the merits of the proposal. I am curious about the standards of government it intends to uphold in the 42nd Parliament to ensure good governance.
Several members interjected.
The Speaker:Order, members!
Ms Sandra Brewer: I quote the Premier:
We will continue to do what we've always done … treat the parliament with respect, staying humble, making sure that we undertake the process of government with respect for the parliament, and we'll continue to do that regardless of the numbers …
Is the failure to provide more notice of this bill consistent with the style of government in the pledge promised by the Premier? Be humble, be respectful and return the trust that Western Australians have placed in you. Should I ever take office as Treasurer, I will uphold myself to stronger standards than providing the shadow Treasurer 48 hours notice of this rushed appropriation bill. I cannot trust that the government will not try this again given its track record on these, but I challenge the Treasurer to do her due diligence in the next budget so we can avoid the necessity of an urgent Treasurer's advance authorisation bill.
Getting to the substance of the bill's proposal of a further $1.926 billion in addition to the Treasurer's advance limit of $1.18 billion set by section 29(1) of the Financial Management Act 2006, the opposition intends to support the bill, recognising Western Australians are now expecting that these advancements will improve government service delivery.
Many Western Australians would be surprised to know that the amount sought today is more than that during the COVID pandemic. It is amazing to consider the economic conditions of the pandemic—closed international and state borders, a closure of hospitality and entertainment businesses, and the destruction to small businesses, which I know the Leader of the Opposition saw in the City of Perth. The government did not go over budget by as much then. The amount sought was $750 million, and today this Treasurer is seeking $1.93 billion for a range of over 70 items in the Pre-election Financial Projections Statement and the Government Mid-year Financial Projections Statement. This provides a sense of the scale of the government's excess.
Part of the just over $3 billion Treasurer's advance is a generous allowance of $500 million for any unforeseen spending that might materialise before 30 June. In just 82 days, the government has allocated half a billion dollars for what might come—that is $6 million a day. I note that this money may not be spent. I encourage the government to show restraint on behalf of Western Australian taxpayers, who have contributed more than ever to the state's coffers. Tax revenues in the most recent Pre-election Financial Projections Statement reveal massive increases to general government operating revenue. Compared with that of 2023–24, transfer duty is forecast to grow by $544 million and payroll tax to grow by $476 million. Unfortunately, it is Western Australian families who are paying record levels of stamp duty on their property purchases that for many will take years of mortgage repayments to pay. The government is a beneficiary of the surge in tax receipts at the same time that WA families are struggling to afford a home. The total amount to be forecast drawn against recoverable advances, excess and new items in 2024–25 is now $2.507 billion. These items, of course, have been outlined in the midyear review and the Pre-election Financial Projections Statement, and they include a range of spending items that did not appear in the state budget.
I know that the Leader of the Opposition and my fellow shadow ministers will closely examine all the relevant expenditure in their government portfolios and hold the government to account for wasteful spending. Ideally, the government would aspire to ensure accurate state budgets without the need for such excessive future advance authorisations.
The member for Kalamunda, the shadow Minister for Police; Corrective Services; Youth, is very keen to look into the revised appropriation limits for items 66, 68, 143 and 144 of the Pre-election Financial Projections Statement, giving a total of $225 million to the Western Australia Police Force and justice portfolios. This government is weak on crime and already playing catch-up to fund prison upgrades and the new youth detention centre, committing $225 million beyond what was provided in the state budget for police and justice. The opposition would never leave police and justice underfunded, and my colleague the member for Kalamunda will advocate strongly to keep our community safe in this term.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, our shadow Minister for Health, the member for Vasse, knows this government has consistently fallen behind on health objectives and is now falling behind on funding. I am proud of the work the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has done in the past term to hold members opposite to account for the sake of people's lives. Of the 70 items added to the state budget and the midyear review and Pre-election Financial Projections Statement, many are related to the health portfolio. I wish the new Minister for Health every success in reducing ambulance ramping and delivering health services with the opposition's support of this extra funding.
Our shadow Minister for Energy will take great interest in scrutinising item 6 in the midyear review, which is a grant of $149.1 million to support Griffin Coal to ensure continuity of coal supply. He will also look closely at item 113, which is $91.2 million to fund Synergy's investment in Collie, the second Kwinana battery energy storage system, and item 114, which is for a range of Western Power electrical network asset upgrades. Given Western Power's poor service levels in land development and residential projects, I expect our shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness, the member for Murray–Wellington, might also take a keen interest. It is most surprising that upgrades to support residential land for housing development were added only after the finalisation of the WA state budget, given that they are critical to housing supply. It seems pulling every lever does not include funding for efficient power connections.
The shadow Minister for Education, the member for Carine, has a passion for ensuring all Western Australian children can get the education and support that they need to thrive. He will closely monitor the additional investments in primary schools and the Roebourne District High School to ensure that we do not see cost blowouts, which have been common in the administration of the asset investment program.
With so many parts of government affecting the conditions for small business, I know my colleague the member for Nedlands and shadow Minister for Small Business will talk to business owners and seek their views on the additional impost of payroll taxes as their businesses grow and employ more people. I remind members that the Treasurer is enjoying an increase of $476 million in payroll tax receipts in the Pre-election Financial Projections Statement when compared with that of the previous year.
A political mentor of mine shared with me an important value when he wrote to me saying that what is important is not what government spends, but what it achieves. With this bill, the government is proposing to spend on cost-of-living relief, and that is because of what it has failed to achieve. This government, despite booming iron ore revenues, property and payroll taxes, has failed to care for the most needy in our society, and it has contributed to the cost-of-living crisis through elevated excessive public spending. At a time when the government could have taken less from Western Australian taxpayers, it has taken more and more.
One of the most substantial costs borne by families is the cost of housing, and after eight years of Labor, housing affordability has deteriorated to levels lower than 2014, according to the Housing Industry Association's housing affordability index. Its December 2024 report said that regional Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia have seen the steepest decline in affordability, and compared to its 20-year average, the index in Perth has worsened by 30.3%. The Western Australian Council of Social Service in December 2024 stated:
Dramatic increases in rental prices have subsumed and outpaced any income growth, leaving low-income families unable to stretch the household budget to cover the cost of the basics.
Western Australian families with mortgages are making higher monthly repayments as the Reserve Bank of Australia grapples with managing high inflation in Australia. The RBA's job is much harder thanks to elevated government spending. The economist Shane Oliver said in a report to the federal Parliament:
… the RBA's job would be a lot easier if they didn't have the surge in government spending that has been occurring over the last few years. It's like two forces operating in different directions …
In Western Australia, let us look at what the Treasurer is overseeing. She has abandoned any pretence of trying to be part of a national effort to drive down inflation. Public spending is forecast to grow by 10.5% this financial year, equating to more than $4.3 billion in expense growth in one year alone.
I cannot conclude my thoughts on the Treasurer's Advance Authorisation Bill 2025 without mentioning the massive Metronet blowouts with ghost trains that have come at a great cost to Western Australians, rising state debt, persistent inflation and a housing shortage caused by a lack of workers as the construction workforce has been absorbed on these projects. The fixation on Metronet has resulted in Western Australians being short-changed in critical areas like health and education. Costs have blown out on Metronet because the government consistently chooses to expand the scope, make expensive additions and push to meet politically driven deadlines. The opposition is determined to expose these poor decisions, hold the government to account and ensure value for money for Western Australian taxpayers. I reiterate: the opposition intends to support this bill knowing that Western Australians expect this advancement—a further $1.9 billion in addition to the $4.3 billion that was spent in excess of the previous year—to improve government services. Western Australians should feel confident that the opposition alliance has their best interests at heart. We will hold the government to account for not just what it spends, but what it achieves.
Mr Basil Zempilas (Churchlands—Leader of the Opposition) (12:42 pm): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak on the Treasurer's Advance Authorisation Bill 2025. I thank the shadow Treasurer for her outstanding contribution. At the outset, let me be clear, as the shadow Treasurer has been, that the opposition will not stand in the way of the passage of this bill. We understand that the government must have the ability to meet its financial obligations up to 30 June, whether that be to pay nurses, police officers and teachers, or to ensure that the lights stay on in our public hospitals and schools. The functioning of the state cannot be jeopardised. However, supporting the passage of this bill does not mean giving the Cook Labor government a free pass. We will not do that—far from it. We are here to scrutinise, challenge and shine a light on what has become an annual ritual. Let me detail that annual ritual: a government flush with cash yet constantly coming back to Parliament and asking, like Oliver Twist, for more.
This year, the Treasurer is seeking an increase of $1.9 billion to the Treasurer's advance, which brings the total to just over an eye-watering $3 billion. That is nearly three times the automatic amount provided under section 29(1) of the Financial Management Act 2006, which was already a substantial $1.08 billion for 2024–25. This is the sixth consecutive year that the Labor government has sought to increase the Treasurer's advance limit. Year after year, despite record revenues from GST reform and royalties, this government has found itself short. How can that be? Each time we are told that this is necessary and that it is responsible. We are told that it is about flexibility, but it really reflects a disturbing lack of fiscal discipline.
Let us recall some facts, members. In 2016–17 under the previous Liberal government, the Treasurer's advance limit was $632 million, of which only $427 million was used. That is what responsible budgeting looks like; to spend within one's means and use the advance for genuine contingencies. I will compare that with what we have seen under this Labor government, a $1 billion increase in 2019–20—
Several members interjected.
Mr Basil Zempilas: I will go on. In 2021 it was $750 million.
The Speaker: Leader of the Opposition, can you just sit for a minute. We have a point of order.
Ms Rita Saffioti interjected.
The Speaker: Treasurer! We have a point of order and points of order will be heard in silence, thank you.
Point of order
Mr Liam Staltari: I refer to standing order 95 that refers to interjections. The Leader of the Opposition is entitled to be heard without interjections.
The Speaker: Thank you, member. I will not uphold that point of order but if we can hear the Leader of the Opposition in a bit more silence, that would be appreciated. Carry on, Leader of the Opposition.
Proceeding resumed
Mr Basil Zempilas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That was very kind of you and much appreciated. I will go back to where I was.
I will compare that with what we have seen under this Labor government. We saw a $1 billion increase in 2019–20; a $750 million increase in 2020–21; a $1.5 billion increase in 2021–22; a record $2.3 billion increase in 2023–24; and a $1.9 billion increase in 2024–25. Looking at this year alone, that is a 177% increase over the original 2024–25 Treasurer's advance limit of $1.08 billion. It is astounding that this has occurred during a time of economic boom and when the government is boasting about record surpluses and its economic management of the state's finances. How can a government that claims to be running a strong budget need an additional $1.9 billion cash advance to meet its commitments? How can it be? What is more astounding is that this year's Treasurer's advance increase is greater than any increase, as highlighted by the shadow Treasurer, during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when extraordinary public health and economic measures were genuinely required.
We are told that the Government Mid-year Financial Projections Statement and the Pre-election Financial Projections Statement explains where the money is going. However, those documents account for only $2.5 billion, leaving a $500 million buffer, apparently, that is equal to almost half the original TA amount to cover less than three months. This alone raises more questions than answers. This government has already burned through an extra $2.5 billion in just 221 days. That is more than $11.3 million every day from the Treasurer's advance and now it is asking for another $500 million as a buffer, just in case. Yet, incredibly, the Treasurer wants us to believe that not a single cent of that additional $500 million has been spent between 7 February and today. Let me repeat that, members. Over a 61-day period, this government claims to have drawn nothing from that half a billion dollars that it says is urgently needed. What decisions have been made since the release of the Pre-election Financial Projections Statement? How much of this extra funding is already committed, whether quietly or otherwise, to cover cost blowouts and mismanaged projects? History tells us that this is exactly what happens. Under this government, cost overruns are not the exception; they are the rule. Just look at Metronet. It is a project that has now become a multibillion-dollar black note.
We have seen delay after delay and blowout after blowout. Absent of accountability, the ghost trains ride out deep into the suburbs. Let us not forget the Auditor General's report. Do members remember the Auditor General's report? It showed that major transport projects under this Treasurer's portfolio had the worst cost overruns and delays. Is it no wonder that we see this government scrambling for more cash at the end of every financial year? Let me be absolutely clear: we are not opposing the idea of a Treasurer's advance; it is a necessary mechanism, and we accept that. It allows government to be flexible in the face of genuine emergencies. However, it was never meant to be an annual slush fund for fixing bad budgeting. In fact, the Financial Management Act makes that clear. The Treasurer's advance exists to allow for advances for unforeseen and urgent purposes—I have it written down; it says so in my notes—and not to bail out a Treasurer who cannot stick to their own spending plan.
Where is the transparency and accountability? The Treasurer owes this Parliament and, more importantly, the people of Western Australia a detailed and transparent explanation of how we got to the figure of $3 billion. If the government has nothing to hide, it should have no problem laying out every cent of its proposed spend in clear detail. Instead, we were handed vague summaries and asked to trust the government. Just like in 2024 and the years before that, we will be asking serious questions during consideration in detail. We want some answers because at the end of the day, we are not talking about the government's money; it is the people's money. Taxpayers, families, small businesses and communities right across the state of Western Australia deserve better than lazy budgeting and last-minute fixes.
So, yes, Mr Speaker, we support this bill because we will not put at risk the wages of frontline workers or the delivery of essential services to Western Australia. But we will do so while demanding transparency, accountability and better financial management.
Mr Shane Love (Mid-West—Leader of the Nationals WA) (12:52 pm): I also rise to speak to the Treasurer's Advance Authorisation Bill 2025, which has been introduced to the house. We are all sitting in this chamber in anticipation of learning exactly where the money has been going. We know that in normal circumstances the Treasurer has access to over $1 billion under the Financial Management Act, yet the government has asked for an advance of $1.926 billion, being the overrun of what was budgeted for about a year ago, bringing the total to $3 billion plus.
Recently in the newspaper we read that the Treasurer claimed to be a conservative Treasurer and had conservative budgeting at her heart. That could be interpreted as a very good thing but what we are seeing with the succession of Treasurer's advance bills over the years is a deliberate attempt to hide the amount of money that the government intends to spend over 12 months. If we look back over the last few years, we can see that a considerable number of requests have come to Parliament because of a consistent under-allocation of budget resources year after year to carry out what the government surely has in mind for its annual expenditures. That has become a pattern under this Labor government. It began during the COVID pandemic and it continues today.
In 2022, the government requested $2.3 billion; in 2023, it was $2.1 billion; and in 2024, it was $1.5 billion—a sum of $5.9 billion across the three bills. If we add the amount asked for this year, the government is asking the Parliament for $7.8 billion. The government is seeking funding in excess of the amount that is ordinarily available to the Treasurer to carry out its business. This government has consistently got its budgeting wrong. The budget process is coming up soon. I am sure that many members would have noted that the parliamentary calendar shows that budget estimates will be held in the first week of July. That means that in the normal scheme of things, I expect the budget to be handed down sometime in June. I hope this time the government makes a genuine attempt to get the budget right and to be honest with the people of Western Australia about what is going to be in that budget. We know that has not been the case to now.
I am looking at the member for Albany. He has not yet made his inaugural speech. As of Tuesday, he did not even have an email address and he has not been allocated an office, yet we have been recalled to Parliament with the expectation that members, who have not been provided the resources they need to carry out their job, are to consider this type of legislation. The earlier sitting of Parliament was not about the situation relating to duties; it was about the government's under-allocation of resources and overspend. It needed to come to this place to introduce a Treasurer's advance bill to cover the money it has already committed. It is making up stories about needing to do that to pay students assistance allowances in term 2. Had the government been responsible and kept within the parameters of the Financial Management Act, it would have had enough money in the kitty to pay for that anyway. It is an absolute furphy.
This government has called members of Parliament to come together when some of them have not even been given the resources to carry out their job. They have not had the chance to engage staff. Some members do not even have an office. For some reason, the office that was vacated by the former member for Albany has not been made available. The new member still does not have the keys. What is going on? It is ridiculous. If we need to know what is required in Western Australia, it is responsible government. What we are seeing from this government is anything but responsible. This government has become lackadaisical in its budgeting processes. It thinks it is okay to have cost overruns and come back to this place and ask for a few billion dollars here and a few billion dollars there. It should go out to the taxpayers in this state and say, "What is a few billion here and a few billion there" to the people who are actually struggling to pay their rent and keep their household costs down because they do not have a kitty worth hundreds of thousands of dollars for their household. They cannot say to their bank, "Please, sir, give me some money. We've misjudged our budget." It does not work like that in real life. It is only in this place where someone can claim to be the world's greatest at something and still get it wrong consistently year after year, which is exactly what the Treasurer has done and what her predecessor did in the same role.
I am the one who has stood in this place on most of those occasions and interrogated Treasurers on these matters during consideration in detail. Some of the mistakes that have been made are eye-watering. We can go back to what occurred with the rapid antigen tests. I think $500 million was spent on purchasing RATs, most of which ended up in the tip. Honestly, I think someone put a zero on the end of the order and we ended up with something like $520 million worth of RATs instead of $52 million worth. That had to be the case; normal procurement could not possibly be that slack. Hang on! Actually, this government did allow the Western Australian Electoral Commission to spend $86 million without any oversight. Maybe that is the way it operates. We are now getting an understanding of just how this mob goes about its work. It is a disgrace. I think it is entirely appropriate that we hold the government to account in this chamber and ask the difficult questions of the Treasurer, who is also the Minister for Transport, and who is also responsible for most of the cost overruns. Funny about that. Who is holding the transport minister to account? Oh, well, that does not happen, except in this place, with the opposition calling the government to account year after year for its cost overruns and inability to keep to the budgets that it has already proclaimed.
As the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have said, we will support the passage of this bill because we know that we cannot de-fund the state; we have to pay the bills of people who have put themselves out there, provided services and tendered contracts. They deserve to be paid and for that money to be made available.
As for the parents who are waiting for student assistance, which was promised to them by the government, we are not going to stand in the way of that. But it does not mean that we will not be asking questions throughout the process. It does not mean that we believe in a process in which a government that feels it is appropriate to under-allocate in its budget year after year can then come cap in hand to the Parliament because it got it wrong. That is not responsible government; that is flawed government, and we will be holding it to account this year. I hope that next year we do not need to do it, but I suspect that it will come looking for even more money.
With that, I will conclude my speech because other people would like to talk on this matter.
Mr Adam Hort (Kalamunda) (1:00 pm): I also rise today to speak on the Treasurer's Advance Authorisation Bill 2025. I am going to use this fancy piece of wood, if I may.
Before I begin my remarks, may I take a moment to formally congratulate you on your ascension to Deputy Speaker of the Western Australian Parliament. While customarily such acknowledgements are reserved for inaugural speeches, given that this is my first opportunity to address the Assembly, I thought it appropriate to offer these congratulations today.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.
Mr Adam Hort: Today we are being asked to approve an extraordinary eye-watering increase to the Treasurer's advance limit for the 2024–25 financial year of $1.9 billion on top of the existing $1.08 billion already available under the Financial Management Act. This brings the total Treasurer's advance to over $3 billion—a rise to 9% of appropriations and yet another sign of a government addicted to emergency top-ups. The opposition recognises the importance of this legislation in ensuring the continued operation of government, and that is why we will support the legislation.
We understand that the day-to-day delivery of essential public services must not be compromised by delays in appropriations or legislative processes. It is not the role of this Parliament to obstruct the machinery of government. We must ensure that our schools remain open and our hospitals continue to function, as much as they can, and that the public sector can carry out its duties without unnecessary disruption. But, equally, it is the responsibility of the opposition to scrutinise the decisions of government, especially on the management of public finances. No government, regardless of its majority, is exempt from accountability, and no matter how many times the Treasurer may claim otherwise, the budgets handed down under her watch have not been free from scrutiny; nor should they be. Let us not forget the near $14 billion this government has spent on Metronet—all at a time when our hospitals are in crisis. I have worked in them; I have seen it. They are in crisis. Our frontline workers across all public sectors are incredibly under-resourced. The cost-of-living crisis continues to plague every corner of our state. Western Australians rightly expect their tax dollars to be spent wisely and transparently on the right priorities.
This advance of more than $3 billion raises serious concerns, so let us put this into perspective. Back in 2016–17 under the Barnett government, the entire Treasurer's advance limit was $632.4 million. Not only was that more modest, but also the actual drawdown was just $427.4 million—well within what was authorised and used responsibly. By contrast, this Labor government has made a habit of using Treasurer's advance authorisation bills as a fallback for routine spending rather than for true emergencies.
If we take the time to dig into the midyear review, the breakdown of the $2.5 billion already spent under this Treasurer's advance tells a very clear story about this government's priorities and where they fall short. As the shadow Minister for Police, I am committed to holding the new police minister to account for not just the decisions he makes going forward, but also the failures of his predecessor—and I do not use the word "failures" lightly. It is quite clear why there is a new Minister for Police in this place. On one hand, $3.3 million was spent on a police officer recruitment campaign, which is a figure that does more to highlight the Cook Labor government's failures to meet its own promise of 950 new officers on the streets by mid-2024—where are they?—than it does to solve the problem. Meanwhile, the Treasurer found it appropriate to sign off on $1.4 million in additional advertising and ICT costs to prop up Labor's taxpayer-funded election gimmick in the Perth Zoo voucher scheme. That was $1.4 million spent not on frontline services, hospitals or schools or on recruiting more police officers to staff our chronically understaffed police districts, but on self-promotion. Then there was the $67.3 million handed to the Public Transport Authority, much of which was spent not on service improvements or network upgrades, but on interest payments. That is the cost of this government's reckless borrowing and its obsession with Metronet—a project that is over budget and behind schedule. It is no wonder the government failed to meet its target of 950 officers last year when these are the figures we are seeing in the books.
I am not saying that millions of dollars in advertising will magically fix the number of police officers we have working the beat. It will not. A significant amount of work is required to repair the morale issues, retention problems and frontline burnout that are widespread across our police force. But when we look at where the government is choosing to prioritise its spending, it naturally leads one to the conclusion that this government is not spending money wisely or strategically. The real question is this. Labor has introduced a TAA bill six years in a row. The current TA limit of $1.08 billion—$1,000 million—is already 71% larger than the 2016–17 level, but, apparently, that is not enough. The government is now asking for an extra $1.9 billion, bringing the total to just over $3 billion, despite no pandemic, no natural disaster and no economic crisis to justify it. We are told that $2.5 billion has already been spent. On top of that, the government is requesting a further $500 million for potential needs in the final three months of the financial year. It is barely that. This tells us one of two things: either this government has once again underestimated its spending or it is using the Treasurer's advance to make its budget papers look cleaner than the fiscal reality.
Let me be clear. This is not about denying flexibility in a fast-moving world. It is not. It is about discipline. It is about accountability. The Treasurer's advance is not a blank cheque. It is not supposed to serve as a parallel budget process, and it certainly should not be relied upon year after year to paper over poor planning and political priorities.
On behalf of the people of Kalamunda, the Perth hills and all Western Australians who expect prudence and transparency with public money, I call on the government to explain why this increase is necessary, what the funds have actually been spent on and why, year after year, we are being asked to trust a process that is becoming less transparent and more routine.
Ms Rita Saffioti (West Swan—Treasurer) (1:07 pm) in reply: I thank opposition members for their contributions because it gives me the ability to give them a history lesson about the government finances of this state. First of all, the Leader of the Opposition was all show and no substance. He claimed that the Barnett government lived within its means. In his first test when discussing the economics and finances of this state, he stood up and told the biggest mistruth—lie—that this Parliament has heard: the Barnett government lived within its means. Leader of the Opposition, it did not. There was deficit after deficit after deficit. It did not. The Barnett government did not live within its means. In his first test, he was all show and no substance—just like his whole history. He is all show and no substance.
He is great at commentating, but when it comes to the facts, he has no idea, and that has been demonstrated in his first performance today when he stood and claimed that the Barnett government lived within its means.
It is totally incorrect; everyone in the state knows it but the Leader of the Opposition. Doesn't the Leader of the Opposition know some basic facts? To stand up today and say that the Barnett government had lived within its means! Like I said, go to any household in Western Australia and they will say how bad the Barnett Liberal government did in relation to the finances. As we predicted, the first test of the Leader of the Opposition was all show, no substance. He was unable to get across some basic facts, and the basic fact is that when the Liberal Party was last in government, it trashed the joint. It wrecked the place. It took net debt from $3.6 billion to a projected $44 billion. That is what the Liberal Party did at a time of massive revenue growth. The biggest iron ore expansion in the state's history happened in those years, with massive revenue growth, and the Liberal Party trashed the joint, operating deficit after deficit. The member for Churchlands has come to this place in his first test as Leader of the Opposition and, as I said, it was all show. He was commentating again. There are basic facts. He was the showman without the facts. We thought it would happen, but I could not believe that he did it the first time he stood up to speak. In his first test he stood up to speak and it was all show and no facts—not understanding the record of his own party. The showman does not understand the record of his own party. What was he doing? He was trying to knife the person sitting next to him—sorry! He probably got a bit confused because he was too busy knifing the person that he is fake smiling at now.
Mr Daniel Pastorelli: More show!
Ms Rita Saffioti: More show—the showman! The showman was here standing up and saying that the Barnett government had lived within its means. How could he actually say that? Okay, I know it; he is someone who does not care about the truth. He is someone who is not genuine. He is someone who does not care about the truth and the history of the Liberal Party in this state. We saw it. We, and the whole state, saw a government, a Liberal–National government, that was flushed with resources that trashed the finances—deficit after deficit and record debt growth from $3.6 billion to a projected $44 billion. That is just the worst management ever.
Mr Shane Love: How come debt has grown under you when you have got massive revenues?
Ms Rita Saffioti: It has been cut, did the member realise? Honestly, go back to where you came from—go back.
Several members interjected.
Ms Rita Saffioti: You have no idea. You are just angry that you moved benches.
Point of order
Mr David Michael: The Leader of the Nationals WA is being unparliamentary.
The Acting Speaker: Can I ask you to withhold, please, member for Mid-West. You have had your opportunity.
Proceeding resumed
Ms Rita Saffioti: The Leader of the National Party talked about his own resources. That is all he did. I remember when he was planning his office in Dumas House during the election campaign—remember? The article was about him trying to figure out which office he was going to move into. That is how arrogant you have been and continue to be in that chair.
As I said, the first test of the Leader of the Opposition was to get across detail and he said that the Liberal Party had delivered within its means, which is obviously incorrect.
Now, let us go to the opposition's election campaign. It was making commitments everywhere. Between it there were $10 billion worth of commitments and now the Leader of the Opposition says it was not the opposition's plan. Is that what he was saying, that he was disingenuous? I think maybe he was. He said we were spending too much, but the opposition said it would spend $10 billion during that election campaign, so obviously it was not telling the truth.
Again, the Leader of the Opposition asked what commitments the government made from 7 February. We were in caretaker mode for most of that. The Leader of the Opposition does not understand that government commitments are not made during caretaker mode. His speech showed no substance. This is a Leader of the Opposition who, as Mayor of the City of Perth, was campaigning for us to take the Commonwealth Games, at a cost of billions of dollars, and his biggest achievement was a riverfront master plan. He called on the state to host Coachella every year and wanted a bigger Bell Tower. That is his record as the Lord Mayor of the City of Perth. And, of course, he closed down a women's shelter.
Mr Lachlan Hunter: Is that all you've got?
Ms Rita Saffioti: Doesn't the member think that is important? No.
Several members interjected.
Ms Rita Saffioti: Who knew that the member for Central Wheatbelt did not care about women's shelters? Who would have guessed that? Is he saying that we should not raise the fact that the Leader of the Opposition shut a women's shelter? Is that what he is saying? That what I thought. He said, "Is that all you've got?" That is what he said. I would apologise for that, when you stand up, because that is not a comment.
We are being lectured by a Leader of the Opposition whose biggest achievement as Lord Mayor was a riverfront master plan, and who says that the suburbs of Perth do not deserve quality public transport. The Liberal Party has started the third term of a Parliament in opposition in the same way as the previous two terms—with financial ignorance, trying to rewrite history and all over the place. It is not genuine at all. Again, there is hyperbole and that Leader of the Opposition is a showman. That is it; that is all we have. The Leader of the Opposition does not care about the suburbs. We all know that; look at the Parliament. This is a Liberal Party that has forgotten the suburbs and forgets the fact that there are people out there who need public transport to access jobs and education opportunities. The Liberal Party should keep doing that, because it did for eight years—keep doing it. It has learnt nothing. This is its third term in opposition and it has learnt nothing from its previous two terms. Again, there is this arrogance of lecturing us about financial responsibility when the Liberal–National government had record revenue growth and trashed the joint.
I now have to refer to the shadow Treasurer. She speaks proudly of her time in the Property Council of Australia. I remember that too because she would not leave us alone. There was not a press conference about housing for which the now member for Cottesloe would not ring up and ask, "Can I be involved?" It was so bad that I rang the member for Landsdale and asked whether we could stop having the now member for Cottesloe at all these press conferences, but she wanted to be involved. She wanted to be part of the economic narrative of the state. Honestly, the now member of Cottesloe was at more press conferences with the former Premier than me, and that is saying something! Every time it was: "Can I come to that press conference, can I stand by the Premier, can I be part of it?" Of course, she was out there tweeting about how good it was for the state. Our headline is "Sandra seems to like the minister"—sorry, the member for Cottesloe. This tweet says: "What a week Rita Saffioti is having. Monday, stage 1 design WA release, and Tuesday it was announced a bill to establish Infrastructure WA, and today Metronet. What an announcement." The member for Cottesloe also tweeted: "Research by the Property Council shows an enormous community support for Metronet. Our members look forward to further progress in 2019." Here is another where she is responding to Liberal Party people having a go at her support for the Labor Party. The member for Cottesloe goes: "Credit where credit is due, the community loves Metronet and thinks the government is doing a good job."
Several members interjected.
Ms Rita Saffioti: Thank you, member. Great.
On economic management, member for Cottesloe, the McGowan Labor government recorded a $1.3 billion surplus for 2018–19—the first surplus in five years. Even the member for Cottesloe knew, obviously, that the previous government delivered deficits. That surplus was two years earlier than expected. It is a nice note on which to finish the week—Hon Ben Wyatt and Hon Mark McGowan—as we slide into a sunny long weekend in Perth.
Then there is the best. The member for Cottesloe said that, to be honest, she wished she could apply that fiscal prudence to her own family finances. She said congrats to the McGowan government on the first budget surplus in five years. That is just our initial flipchart. We have more to come. We could not get to the printer in time, so we made this ourselves. It was a good effort. Again, the member for Cottesloe stood up and critiqued the financial management of this state when, year after year, she begged to come to our press conferences. As I said, she was always standing next to me. It was getting awkward! Every housing policy, she was there. Every stamp duty policy, she was there. Every budget, she was there. There is a cracking photo, which I do not have yet, of her standing there with the state budget, looking so excited to be part of the budget.
Obviously, I think this member might not be that genuine. That is my conclusion. I do not think we can trust or believe anything this member says, because obviously she thought we were doing a great job. The others were pointing out mismanagement over seven or eight years; the member for Cottesloe was out there, next to us, endorsing everything we were doing—all our housing policies, all our economic growth policies and all our financial management policies. That is what was happening, but now, today—not so much! Today it has changed a bit; it is not so much. I sat here and listened to the member for Cottesloe, who had contacted the Premier's office, wanting to be involved in every press conference. As I said, it got awkward. I can honestly say that I contacted the Premier's office at the time to say, "Do we really need this member here again?" But, you know, she wanted to come, so they accepted her: "There she is. There's the member for Cottesloe talking about the budget papers, with congratulations on the strong financial performance and excellent announcement on property." She was there, congratulating us, only a couple of years back. That is the member for Cottesloe. She is obviously not genuine in anything she does or says. How could she stand there and endorse a government's—
Point of order
Mr Liam Staltari: Deputy Speaker, apologies. Standing order 92. It is a poor reflection on the character of the shadow Treasurer from the Treasurer.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, I missed that. Can you just say that again?
Mr Liam Staltari: Standing order 92, point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—a poor reflection on the character of the shadow Treasurer.
The Deputy Speaker: Treasurer, just be mindful of the language that you use, thank you.
Proceeding resumed
Ms Rita Saffioti: The member for Cottesloe, in a previous role, was out there, holding the budget papers, talking about the excellent economic management of the state. As I said, that was only a couple of years ago. I do not think we can trust anything that the shadow Treasurer says, because obviously being genuine is not part of who she is.
In relation to the whole concept of spending and where it is going, it is in the papers. Again, the Leader of the Opposition stands up, saying, "Where's the money going?" There it is. It is called two published documents. It is called the midyear review, members. Again, maybe the Leader of the Opposition was too busy commissioning secret polling about the person sitting next to him. Maybe he was too busy to read the government midyear review and the pre-election financial statement, which outlined the spending. This whole thing of, "We can't wait to interrogate and see where the money is"—it is there. It is in the published documents. I mean, it is—
Ms Cassie Rowe: What was the credit rating like under Barnett?
Ms Rita Saffioti: Yes, that is a good point, too, but I am just going to the key point.
I am sorry that we did not, I do not know, sit down and read it with the Leader of the Opposition; I do not know.
Several members interjected.
Ms Rita Saffioti: I do not know. I remember when I was in opposition and there were documents like this. I remember that once, I was in Geelong. It was actually between Christmas and New Year, the first and only time a midyear review was released between Christmas and New Year's Eve. I was visiting family, my sick aunty, and I remember it coming out. I read through it like it was the source of all information, because it is: it shows all the spending. They are called budget papers and the midyear review. I do not know whether the Leader of the Nationals has seen these; I do not know. Oh, he has seen them. That is good, because he should open them, too! He should open them, because they have all the secret information that he said existed; it is here. It is a good read! Again, I do not know whether things have changed or what has happened here, because I remember we had the former Leader of the Liberal Party saying that we need to spend more money on health, so we are. That is what we are doing. Another time, she said we have to make sure we fund our community services more. That is what we are doing. She said we have to address cost-of-living; that is what we are doing. That is why we had to pass on hundreds of millions of dollars from the Commonwealth government through the Treasurer's Advance Authorisation Bill 2025. Yes, we have the revenue, but we had the expenditure. The Treasurer's advance looks at appropriating cash, but in many instances it does not reflect the true bottom line, because it does not reflect where you have revenue to match the expenditure or that there is other revenue in other accounts.
As I said, in respect of this "secret, secret" spending, opposition members are starting this third term in the same way that they started our first two terms in government. They do not read any published documents and then they come in saying, "Where's the transparency?" The Leader of the Opposition said, "We need transparency. We need to know where you're spending the money." There it is: it is in published documents. This term seems like it is going to go very much like the previous two terms, where there is an incoherent strategy from the opposition. Again, at least the Leader of the Nationals is consistent: he is worried about his own resources again, which is very consistent. The opposition has an incoherent strategy and is not across any of the substance. The member for Cottesloe was, "Get in the car!" every time there was a press conference. "Start the car!" It was like the Ikea ad. Whenever there was a McGowan press conference, the member for Cottesloe was, "Start the car!" She was getting in that car to join us at every press conference. She was standing there, supporting what we were doing on housing policy, supporting our economic management, supporting our financial management and supporting Metronet, because it was delivering for all her Property Council members. That is what was happening. We have a Leader of the Opposition who believes that the Barnett government lived within its means, which is totally wrong, and, as I said, a Leader of the Nationals who continues to worry about office space and his coffee machines. I do not know.
I thank members opposite for their support. I am happy to go through more detail. As I said, all of it is in published documents. It is about making sure that we deliver on all the commitments we made in the lead-up to the midyear review, making sure in particular that there is activity across our hospital system and that we can cater for that. In relation to the student assistance payments, that was an election commitment we made. We need to get this legislation passed to facilitate the timing of that. The opposition says that it cares about cost of living. This is a major cost-of-living announcement. The opposition actually opposed it when we announced it, because it said that it was not means tested. The opposition does not like free entry to the Zoo; fair enough. That is up to the opposition, if it does not like giving families a benefit—
Mr Lachlan Hunter: How are they going to get there from the Central Wheatbelt?
Ms Rita Saffioti: It is funny you should talk about the National Party and—
Several members interjected.
Ms Rita Saffioti: One of the interesting things was when we won government and went out. The National Party had agreed to cut the AvonLink. The National Party, under Barnett, as part of a budget process had agreed to defund the AvonLink. That is what it did. We were in a very tight budget situation of course, because we inherited deficits and climbing debt. The agency said that this was a previous government announced commitment, where it had actually defunded the AvonLink through forward estimates. I said, "My first act will not be to cut a regional rail service." Since then, we have kept it on and are also increasing services around the state and making it cheaper because we are cutting Transwa fares. We are doing all those things. Member, I also want to point out—this is the feedback I got from many regional members—that when we have discounts for things such as the Zoo, a lot of regional families visit family during key holidays. Madam Deputy Speaker, that is something you have talked to me about too. Families visit families or friends and come to Perth for holidays, and when they do that, they take advantage of these visits and family events, and that is a good thing.
National Party, if we want to talk about regional rail, that is another hour, which I will not do right now, but let us face it, this is a National Party that turned its back on the bush when it privatised—
Several members interjected.
Ms Rita Saffioti: When they turned their back on the bush—
Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, member for Central Wheatbelt.
Ms Rita Saffioti: If the member keeps going like that, again, it's happening in the third term just like the first two terms.
I thank members for their support of this bill. It has been an interesting time to go through the history of the Liberal and National Parties. Given that after eight years they have obviously not learnt anything, I am sure we will be doing this again and again. As I said, we have a record of delivering strong surpluses and controlling debt. We have done it at times of COVID and record infrastructure spend. We are delivering record cost-of-living relief, we are expanding our hospitals, we are delivering across the state, we are delivering to the suburbs and to the households of WA. The Liberal and National Parties through their campaign could not gain the trust of the Western Australian public to move over the corridor in here. They could not even get across that corridor, because they were arrogant, they thought they knew it all and today is another example of it, where they do not understand what it takes to deliver services to this state and they ignore their past. But again, thank you for your support for the bill.
I commend the bill to the house.
Question put and passed.
Bill read a second time.
Leave denied to proceed forthwith to third reading.
Consideration in detail
Clauses 1 and 2 put and passed
Clause 3: Authorisation of expenditure to make certain payments or to make advances for certain purposes
Ms Libby Mettam : I have a number of questions to ask, and I am sure other members here will have questions as well. My specific question relates to page 187 of the Government Mid-year Financial Projections Statement and item 57, which refers to WA Health delivery of services, with $310 million, and states:
… to support higher activity, continued funding to address price related pressures, and service expansions in hospitals …
Can the Treasurer provide a breakdown of these funds by the three areas; namely, how much was for increased demand and how many occasions of service did this provide?
Ms Rita Saffioti: For hospital services, $309 million, and that included an uplift of 13,000 weighted activity units.
Ms Libby Mettam: Was it spread evenly across all health service areas or is higher demand being localised in a specific area of health services?
Ms Rita Saffioti: I do not have that information, sorry.
Ms Libby Mettam: How much was allocated to price increases? Is the Treasurer able to provide any clarity and to what end, what areas did this cover?
Ms Rita Saffioti: I do not have that breakdown of that actual growth of activity, that number, and also the price.
Ms Libby Mettam: Is the Treasurer able to provide any information about what services were expanded and in what hospitals?
Ms Rita Saffioti: We do not have a hospital-by-hospital breakdown. That would maybe need to be put on notice in the other place.
Ms Libby Mettam: Just a final question in relation to this part of the midyear review, was any of this funding for agency or contract nursing? Is the Treasurer able to provide any clarity on that?
Ms Rita Saffioti: That would have been an input into how they calculate unit activity pricings, so we do not have the level of detail in relation to the composition of the per unit price.
Ms Sandra Brewer: Is there a formal process or criteria for what constitutes "urgent and unforeseen" expenditure as intended under section 29(1) of the Financial Management Act?
Ms Rita Saffioti: It has always been a range of factors. In particular, when we have had significant, as we said, population growth, these types of expenditure have always been dealt with through the Treasurer’s advance. Spending more money on health is something that is our priority.
Ms Sandra Brewer: My question was not about health; it was about exceeding the Treasurer’s advance, which is becoming a common occurrence under this government. Has Treasury provided any advice on reforming the Treasurer's advance process to improve forecasting, transparency or accountability to Parliament?
Ms Rita Saffioti: The Financial Management Act was designed to have provision for this. Of course, Treasury provides advice about how we manage the budget and that is why we continue to deliver surpluses and have some of the best debt numbers in the nation.
Ms Sandra Brewer: Given that we have seen a big variance in the amount of the Treasurer's advance, over $1.9 billion extra this year, compared with a far less $750 million in 2021 when we had a cyclone, major bushfires and a global pandemic, will the Treasurer consider tabling a quarterly report on the Treasurer's advance usage to enhance parliamentary oversight over the financial year?
Ms Rita Saffioti: Quarterly reports of state finances are released that provide updates on the financial arrangements of the state—and then the Annual Report on State Finances detail all the expenditure, plus of course we have the midyear review, the PR midyear review and other budget updates that can provide that information.
Ms Sandra Brewer: Can the Treasurer confirm that the additional $500 million being requested is, in part, due to the budget being delivered late this year? Will the budget, once released, contain the Treasurer's advance appendix covering all expenditure that will occur between now and 1 July? Is that release date still expected to be for September this year?
Ms Rita Saffioti: The budget is later than normal years, but it is earlier than normal election years. In previous election years, it was a September budget, both under the Liberal Party and us. It has always normally been September, but we are bringing that budget earlier, so it is actually early for an election year. In relation to any other expenditure from the Treasurer’s advance, it will be detailed in the budget documents. As we said, the September annual report figures detail all expenditure.
Ms Sandra Brewer: Can the Treasurer please clarify when the state budget is expected?
Ms Rita Saffioti: Yes, it is 19 June as has been described in the program.
Mr Adam Hort : This question is from the Government Mid-year Financial Projections Statement, item 66. There was $3.3 million allocated for a police officer recruitment campaign. How many police officers should that increase in funding have brought on to the police force? What is the benchmark? What is the actual number of police achieved?
Ms Rita Saffioti: What page?
Mr Adam Hort: Page 176. It is item 68, "Delivery of Services", at the bottom of the table under justice.
Ms Rita Saffioti: Page 188, 10 pages in, gives the member the description. So that is good to look at.
Mr Adam Hort: What is the actual number of police achieved, though? That was not in the detail in there that I was after.
Ms Rita Saffioti: The member will have to put that as a question on notice to the Minister for Police.
Mr Adam Hort: This is again on the same item. There was $2.4 million allocated for the implementation of knife crime legislative reforms. How is this funding being spent on equipment, training, prosecutions or public communication? Are further allocations expected? How many knives were confiscated or found on peoples presenting since its introduction?
Ms Rita Saffioti: As I said, I think it is $2.2 million. I will just check. Again, that is a level of detail that the member would have to ask the Minister for Police or his representative in the other place.
Mr Adam Hort: Under the midyear review item 143, $43 million was approved for the Western Australian Police Force infrastructure, including $22.3 million for the Fremantle District Police Complex. What is the timeline for completion? Is this over the original project budget? That is item 143 in the midyear review.
Ms Rita Saffioti: I am sorry, member; I do not have the opening date of that facility. Again, it can be answered if the member provides some questions on notice or we can give this information when it is debated over in the other place. I am happy to do that.
Mr Adam Hort: Sorry to take the Treasurer back to item 66, but this time not from the midyear review but the Pre-Election Financial Projections Statement. There was $2.1 million allocated for the implementation of the amendments to the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004. Why was this funding unforeseen? What will it deliver? Will this be sufficient or will a further cost be expected in 2025–26? Are there ongoing costs anticipated for system maintenance or upgrades?
Ms Rita Saffioti: Sorry, I do not have all the information. In many instances, we wait for the legislation to be passed to fully allocate. Sometimes we provision, but we wait until the regulations and Parliament endorses the legislation before we fully allocate.
Mr Adam Hort: I refer to the midyear review and item 68. I will give the Treasurer some time to flick through it. What are the long-term budget implications of the $69.9 million given to the Department of Justice for prison population growth? Is a capital solution being considered instead of a constant operational funding increase?
Ms Rita Saffioti: That is a wider policy discussion that I will not be able to address in this process, but it was due to a higher than anticipated prison population. We have seen a significant increase in the prison population and, as a result, some, I suppose, interim measures or measures are being implemented to manage that prisoner population. In relation to the longer term, that is more of a general policy discussion that is being had with the Minister for Corrective Services and the Attorney General.
Mr Adam Hort: I have one more question on that item. An amount of $21.8 million is allocated for cost increases in contracted court, custodial and rehabilitation services. Which providers or programs will be affected and does this funding reflect an increase in demand, inflation or contract renegotiations?
Ms Rita Saffioti: A number of contract renegotiations are ongoing. This is a cost pressure of government, particularly when we contract services out over time. There are differing views on how we should manage those contracts and what type of indexes we should apply to those contracts. Sometimes the perceived benefits of contracting out are not delivered because there is normally a call back on the indexation of contracts. This item includes additional funding for the contracted service deliverers to ensure that they continue to pay their staff and deliver those services. It is also a result of an increase in the prisoner population.
Mr Adam Hort: In the midyear review under item 144, $4.1 million is allocated to the expansion of the adult custodial estate. What specific infrastructure works will this fund and will it provide additional beds or new facilities?
Ms Rita Saffioti: Is this question about the $14 million?
Mr Adam Hort: Yes.
Ms Rita Saffioti: It is for improvements to a number of projects including some works at Banksia Hill Detention Centre and Roebourne Regional Prison, and some minor upgrades like those at Greenough Regional Prison.
Mr Liam Staltari : I refer to item 65 in the Pre-election Financial Projections Statement, which I believe is on page 87. An allocation of $2.1 million has been approved to support the establishment of a defence centre of excellence at the South Metropolitan TAFE. Is this the total cost? When will that centre be operational? What is its expected intake in the first year? How will the success of this centre be measured?
Ms Rita Saffioti: According to my notes, the centre will operate throughout the network created by South Metropolitan TAFE and its four campuses. It will also be part of the joint commonwealth–state investment under the National Skills Agreement. A media release of 29 January 2025 explains the project and what it delivers.
Ms Sandra Brewer: I refer to item 114 in the midyear review. Sorry, I do not have the page number. Of the $63.5 million provided to Western Power that reflects the relocation and upgrade of network assets across the metropolitan area, how much is driven by developer-requested upgrades versus government-initiated expansion?
Ms Rita Saffioti: I do not have all the details, but I recall that it includes funding to upgrade the electricity network in Mundijong, in particular to support the power infrastructure for West Mundijong Industrial Estate.
Clause put and passed.
Title put and passed
Third reading
Ms Rita Saffioti (West Swan—Treasurer) (1:55 pm): I move:
That the bill be now read a third time.
I thank members very much for their support of this bill. It is normal after an election for the Treasurer's advance legislation to be brought into this place and to have this discussion. As members can see in the list of priorities, the focus of the Treasurer's advance very much is at the heart of what the community is demanding: cost-of-living measures and support; the passing on of the Commonwealth government's energy assistance rebates; extra expenditure in health, noting the extraordinary demand across the system; and the allocation of sufficient funds to support the community services sector through the provision of contracted services in the community services space.
We reached an agreement with the Leader of the Opposition on Friday about bringing in this bill. I thank him again for his indulgence. I am sorry, member for Cottesloe, that sometimes we do not get two weeks to analyse things in Parliament, but this is normal business. Further scrutiny will be allowed through the budget process and other bills that will be brought into this place. Again, we thank members opposite very much for their support.
The Treasurer's advance reflects the priorities of this government and cost-of-living support to the community. With the passage of this bill through this place and the other place, we will be able to start distributing student assistance payments to families around the state. The first version of the student assistance payment was well received by families across the state. We really hope that the second version, which will be distributed in May, will also support families throughout the state. I thank members for their indulgence and for their support and valid questions. Further details can be provided in the upper house. Given that members raised questions in this place, I will make sure that all that information is on hand in the other place to save members opposite from putting those questions on notice. We will follow up those questions by making sure that detailed answers are provided in the other place, where they can be tabled. I thank members very much for their support. I think we are aiming to keep going until two o'clock. I will talk a little bit more about the cost-of-living support that we are providing.
Mr Basil Zempilas: You can talk about the Dockers.
Ms Rita Saffioti: I do not think I can talk about the Dockers. Thank goodness we did not provide them with any money through the Treasurer's advance. However, I can talk about our focus on the increased level of activity in our health system, our increase in support for community services, the continuation of cost-of-living support and the passage of this bill through this place and the upper house.
We also announced today that our budget will be handed down on 19 June. This is earlier than most election-year budgets, but we want to appropriate the funds and get on with delivering our range of commitments to the community. Handing down our budget on 19 June will allow us to get on with delivering our many election commitments and avoid unnecessary hold-ups. It is a bit earlier than normal for an election year, which will put a bit more pressure on us to get it done, but we are very confident with the work of the public service and all the ministers that we will be able to present that budget. Again, I thank the opposition for its help and I will now sit down.
Debate interrupted, pursuant to standing orders.
(Continued at a later stage of the sitting.)
