❓ Question regarding alleged underspending on road safety by the WA Police. Minister denies underspending, explaining funds were transferred to capital works for CADCOM project.
AnsweredQoN 760Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to her claim in this House yesterday that the Western Australia Police Service has not underspent its budget for road safety and traffic management in 2002-03. (1) Is the minister aware that the 2003-04 budget papers indicate that the Western Australia Police Service was allocated $88.393 million for road safety and traffic management in this financial year? (2) Is the minister further aware that the 2003-04 budget papers indicate that the Western Australia Police Service spent only $87.385 million on road safety in this financial year? (3) Does the minister now concede that there is a difference in these two figures of over $1 million? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) The clear answer is no. Apart from giving the member the answer yesterday, this was explained in detail during the police division of the estimates hearing by the Commissioner of Police, Mr Barry Matthews, Mr Taylor and me. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have the Estimates Committee transcript in front of me, so the member need not tell me that it was not explained when it was. I will go through this time and again if the Opposition wishes, but the explanation given by Mr Taylor was - As a result of the Government’s decision to purchase components 1A and 1B of CADCOM, a substantial amount of money has been transferred out of the recurrent funds into the capital works. That has been spread across all outputs. A total of $7.6 million was transferred to capital works from the recurrent funds. Proportionately, the traffic output is approximately $1 million. That is why there is a variance. None of the $7 million will be carried forward for recurrent funding. It is obviously a little difficult for the member for Carine to understand the explanation, but that is what occurred. There has been no cut to that budget or to other budgets. Mr C.J. Barnett: If you transfer money out, you cut a budget. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
(1) Is the minister aware that the 2003-04 budget papers indicate that the Western Australia Police Service was allocated $88.393 million for road safety and traffic management in this financial year? (2) Is the minister further aware that the 2003-04 budget papers indicate that the Western Australia Police Service spent only $87.385 million on road safety in this financial year? (3) Does the minister now concede that there is a difference in these two figures of over $1 million? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(3) The clear answer is no. Apart from giving the member the answer yesterday, this was explained in detail during the police division of the estimates hearing by the Commissioner of Police, Mr Barry Matthews, Mr Taylor and me. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have the Estimates Committee transcript in front of me, so the member need not tell me that it was not explained when it was. I will go through this time and again if the Opposition wishes, but the explanation given by Mr Taylor was - As a result of the Government’s decision to purchase components 1A and 1B of CADCOM, a substantial amount of money has been transferred out of the recurrent funds into the capital works. That has been spread across all outputs. A total of $7.6 million was transferred to capital works from the recurrent funds. Proportionately, the traffic output is approximately $1 million. That is why there is a variance. None of the $7 million will be carried forward for recurrent funding. It is obviously a little difficult for the member for Carine to understand the explanation, but that is what occurred. There has been no cut to that budget or to other budgets. Mr C.J. Barnett: If you transfer money out, you cut a budget. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
(2) Is the minister further aware that the 2003-04 budget papers indicate that the Western Australia Police Service spent only $87.385 million on road safety in this financial year? (3) Does the minister now concede that there is a difference in these two figures of over $1 million? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(3) The clear answer is no. Apart from giving the member the answer yesterday, this was explained in detail during the police division of the estimates hearing by the Commissioner of Police, Mr Barry Matthews, Mr Taylor and me. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have the Estimates Committee transcript in front of me, so the member need not tell me that it was not explained when it was. I will go through this time and again if the Opposition wishes, but the explanation given by Mr Taylor was - As a result of the Government’s decision to purchase components 1A and 1B of CADCOM, a substantial amount of money has been transferred out of the recurrent funds into the capital works. That has been spread across all outputs. A total of $7.6 million was transferred to capital works from the recurrent funds. Proportionately, the traffic output is approximately $1 million. That is why there is a variance. None of the $7 million will be carried forward for recurrent funding. It is obviously a little difficult for the member for Carine to understand the explanation, but that is what occurred. There has been no cut to that budget or to other budgets. Mr C.J. Barnett: If you transfer money out, you cut a budget. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
(3) Does the minister now concede that there is a difference in these two figures of over $1 million? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(3) The clear answer is no. Apart from giving the member the answer yesterday, this was explained in detail during the police division of the estimates hearing by the Commissioner of Police, Mr Barry Matthews, Mr Taylor and me. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have the Estimates Committee transcript in front of me, so the member need not tell me that it was not explained when it was. I will go through this time and again if the Opposition wishes, but the explanation given by Mr Taylor was - As a result of the Government’s decision to purchase components 1A and 1B of CADCOM, a substantial amount of money has been transferred out of the recurrent funds into the capital works. That has been spread across all outputs. A total of $7.6 million was transferred to capital works from the recurrent funds. Proportionately, the traffic output is approximately $1 million. That is why there is a variance. None of the $7 million will be carried forward for recurrent funding. It is obviously a little difficult for the member for Carine to understand the explanation, but that is what occurred. There has been no cut to that budget or to other budgets. Mr C.J. Barnett: If you transfer money out, you cut a budget. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(3) The clear answer is no. Apart from giving the member the answer yesterday, this was explained in detail during the police division of the estimates hearing by the Commissioner of Police, Mr Barry Matthews, Mr Taylor and me. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have the Estimates Committee transcript in front of me, so the member need not tell me that it was not explained when it was. I will go through this time and again if the Opposition wishes, but the explanation given by Mr Taylor was - As a result of the Government’s decision to purchase components 1A and 1B of CADCOM, a substantial amount of money has been transferred out of the recurrent funds into the capital works. That has been spread across all outputs. A total of $7.6 million was transferred to capital works from the recurrent funds. Proportionately, the traffic output is approximately $1 million. That is why there is a variance. None of the $7 million will be carried forward for recurrent funding. It is obviously a little difficult for the member for Carine to understand the explanation, but that is what occurred. There has been no cut to that budget or to other budgets. Mr C.J. Barnett: If you transfer money out, you cut a budget. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
(1)-(3) The clear answer is no. Apart from giving the member the answer yesterday, this was explained in detail during the police division of the estimates hearing by the Commissioner of Police, Mr Barry Matthews, Mr Taylor and me. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have the Estimates Committee transcript in front of me, so the member need not tell me that it was not explained when it was. I will go through this time and again if the Opposition wishes, but the explanation given by Mr Taylor was - As a result of the Government’s decision to purchase components 1A and 1B of CADCOM, a substantial amount of money has been transferred out of the recurrent funds into the capital works. That has been spread across all outputs. A total of $7.6 million was transferred to capital works from the recurrent funds. Proportionately, the traffic output is approximately $1 million. That is why there is a variance. None of the $7 million will be carried forward for recurrent funding. It is obviously a little difficult for the member for Carine to understand the explanation, but that is what occurred. There has been no cut to that budget or to other budgets. Mr C.J. Barnett: If you transfer money out, you cut a budget. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have the Estimates Committee transcript in front of me, so the member need not tell me that it was not explained when it was. I will go through this time and again if the Opposition wishes, but the explanation given by Mr Taylor was - As a result of the Government’s decision to purchase components 1A and 1B of CADCOM, a substantial amount of money has been transferred out of the recurrent funds into the capital works. That has been spread across all outputs. A total of $7.6 million was transferred to capital works from the recurrent funds. Proportionately, the traffic output is approximately $1 million. That is why there is a variance. None of the $7 million will be carried forward for recurrent funding. It is obviously a little difficult for the member for Carine to understand the explanation, but that is what occurred. There has been no cut to that budget or to other budgets. Mr C.J. Barnett: If you transfer money out, you cut a budget. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have the Estimates Committee transcript in front of me, so the member need not tell me that it was not explained when it was. I will go through this time and again if the Opposition wishes, but the explanation given by Mr Taylor was - As a result of the Government’s decision to purchase components 1A and 1B of CADCOM, a substantial amount of money has been transferred out of the recurrent funds into the capital works. That has been spread across all outputs. A total of $7.6 million was transferred to capital works from the recurrent funds. Proportionately, the traffic output is approximately $1 million. That is why there is a variance. None of the $7 million will be carried forward for recurrent funding. It is obviously a little difficult for the member for Carine to understand the explanation, but that is what occurred. There has been no cut to that budget or to other budgets. Mr C.J. Barnett: If you transfer money out, you cut a budget. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
Mr C.J. Barnett: If you transfer money out, you cut a budget. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
(1) Is the minister aware that the 2003-04 budget papers indicate that the Western Australia Police Service was allocated $88.393 million for road safety and traffic management in this financial year? (2) Is the minister further aware that the 2003-04 budget papers indicate that the Western Australia Police Service spent only $87.385 million on road safety in this financial year? (3) Does the minister now concede that there is a difference in these two figures of over $1 million? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(3) The clear answer is no. Apart from giving the member the answer yesterday, this was explained in detail during the police division of the estimates hearing by the Commissioner of Police, Mr Barry Matthews, Mr Taylor and me. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have the Estimates Committee transcript in front of me, so the member need not tell me that it was not explained when it was. I will go through this time and again if the Opposition wishes, but the explanation given by Mr Taylor was - As a result of the Government’s decision to purchase components 1A and 1B of CADCOM, a substantial amount of money has been transferred out of the recurrent funds into the capital works. That has been spread across all outputs. A total of $7.6 million was transferred to capital works from the recurrent funds. Proportionately, the traffic output is approximately $1 million. That is why there is a variance. None of the $7 million will be carried forward for recurrent funding. It is obviously a little difficult for the member for Carine to understand the explanation, but that is what occurred. There has been no cut to that budget or to other budgets. Mr C.J. Barnett: If you transfer money out, you cut a budget. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
(2) Is the minister further aware that the 2003-04 budget papers indicate that the Western Australia Police Service spent only $87.385 million on road safety in this financial year? (3) Does the minister now concede that there is a difference in these two figures of over $1 million? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(3) The clear answer is no. Apart from giving the member the answer yesterday, this was explained in detail during the police division of the estimates hearing by the Commissioner of Police, Mr Barry Matthews, Mr Taylor and me. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have the Estimates Committee transcript in front of me, so the member need not tell me that it was not explained when it was. I will go through this time and again if the Opposition wishes, but the explanation given by Mr Taylor was - As a result of the Government’s decision to purchase components 1A and 1B of CADCOM, a substantial amount of money has been transferred out of the recurrent funds into the capital works. That has been spread across all outputs. A total of $7.6 million was transferred to capital works from the recurrent funds. Proportionately, the traffic output is approximately $1 million. That is why there is a variance. None of the $7 million will be carried forward for recurrent funding. It is obviously a little difficult for the member for Carine to understand the explanation, but that is what occurred. There has been no cut to that budget or to other budgets. Mr C.J. Barnett: If you transfer money out, you cut a budget. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
(3) Does the minister now concede that there is a difference in these two figures of over $1 million? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(3) The clear answer is no. Apart from giving the member the answer yesterday, this was explained in detail during the police division of the estimates hearing by the Commissioner of Police, Mr Barry Matthews, Mr Taylor and me. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have the Estimates Committee transcript in front of me, so the member need not tell me that it was not explained when it was. I will go through this time and again if the Opposition wishes, but the explanation given by Mr Taylor was - As a result of the Government’s decision to purchase components 1A and 1B of CADCOM, a substantial amount of money has been transferred out of the recurrent funds into the capital works. That has been spread across all outputs. A total of $7.6 million was transferred to capital works from the recurrent funds. Proportionately, the traffic output is approximately $1 million. That is why there is a variance. None of the $7 million will be carried forward for recurrent funding. It is obviously a little difficult for the member for Carine to understand the explanation, but that is what occurred. There has been no cut to that budget or to other budgets. Mr C.J. Barnett: If you transfer money out, you cut a budget. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(3) The clear answer is no. Apart from giving the member the answer yesterday, this was explained in detail during the police division of the estimates hearing by the Commissioner of Police, Mr Barry Matthews, Mr Taylor and me. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have the Estimates Committee transcript in front of me, so the member need not tell me that it was not explained when it was. I will go through this time and again if the Opposition wishes, but the explanation given by Mr Taylor was - As a result of the Government’s decision to purchase components 1A and 1B of CADCOM, a substantial amount of money has been transferred out of the recurrent funds into the capital works. That has been spread across all outputs. A total of $7.6 million was transferred to capital works from the recurrent funds. Proportionately, the traffic output is approximately $1 million. That is why there is a variance. None of the $7 million will be carried forward for recurrent funding. It is obviously a little difficult for the member for Carine to understand the explanation, but that is what occurred. There has been no cut to that budget or to other budgets. Mr C.J. Barnett: If you transfer money out, you cut a budget. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
(1)-(3) The clear answer is no. Apart from giving the member the answer yesterday, this was explained in detail during the police division of the estimates hearing by the Commissioner of Police, Mr Barry Matthews, Mr Taylor and me. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have the Estimates Committee transcript in front of me, so the member need not tell me that it was not explained when it was. I will go through this time and again if the Opposition wishes, but the explanation given by Mr Taylor was - As a result of the Government’s decision to purchase components 1A and 1B of CADCOM, a substantial amount of money has been transferred out of the recurrent funds into the capital works. That has been spread across all outputs. A total of $7.6 million was transferred to capital works from the recurrent funds. Proportionately, the traffic output is approximately $1 million. That is why there is a variance. None of the $7 million will be carried forward for recurrent funding. It is obviously a little difficult for the member for Carine to understand the explanation, but that is what occurred. There has been no cut to that budget or to other budgets. Mr C.J. Barnett: If you transfer money out, you cut a budget. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have the Estimates Committee transcript in front of me, so the member need not tell me that it was not explained when it was. I will go through this time and again if the Opposition wishes, but the explanation given by Mr Taylor was - As a result of the Government’s decision to purchase components 1A and 1B of CADCOM, a substantial amount of money has been transferred out of the recurrent funds into the capital works. That has been spread across all outputs. A total of $7.6 million was transferred to capital works from the recurrent funds. Proportionately, the traffic output is approximately $1 million. That is why there is a variance. None of the $7 million will be carried forward for recurrent funding. It is obviously a little difficult for the member for Carine to understand the explanation, but that is what occurred. There has been no cut to that budget or to other budgets. Mr C.J. Barnett: If you transfer money out, you cut a budget. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: I have the Estimates Committee transcript in front of me, so the member need not tell me that it was not explained when it was. I will go through this time and again if the Opposition wishes, but the explanation given by Mr Taylor was - As a result of the Government’s decision to purchase components 1A and 1B of CADCOM, a substantial amount of money has been transferred out of the recurrent funds into the capital works. That has been spread across all outputs. A total of $7.6 million was transferred to capital works from the recurrent funds. Proportionately, the traffic output is approximately $1 million. That is why there is a variance. None of the $7 million will be carried forward for recurrent funding. It is obviously a little difficult for the member for Carine to understand the explanation, but that is what occurred. There has been no cut to that budget or to other budgets. Mr C.J. Barnett: If you transfer money out, you cut a budget. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
Mr C.J. Barnett: If you transfer money out, you cut a budget. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: No, that is wrong. Where there is a misunderstanding is that the money has not been cut out, it has been transferred from the recurrent budget to the capital budget. The fact of the matter is that there is no underspending on road safety, and that is not what the budget papers indicate. Members opposite clearly understand nothing about the ES-CADCOM project at all. The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
The SPEAKER: That is the end of question time. I point out, mainly to ministers, that the length of answers meant that question time went for nearly an hour today, which is excessive. I ask ministers to try to keep their answers somewhat shorter or make ministerial statements.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.