❓ Debate over the legality of the Premier's decision to block the Mauds Landing marina development, with accusations of improper legal advice and political maneuvering. The Premier defends the decision based on environmental concerns and Crown Solicitor advice, while the opposition questions the decision's validity.
AnsweredQoN 1126Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to claims made by the shadow Minister for State Development that the Premier’s decision to not approve the proposed marina development at Mauds Landing was legally invalid. Has the Premier had an opportunity to clarify the matter? Dr G.I. GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
It is very interesting to observe what is going on in Western Australian politics about the Government’s decision to block the proposed marina and resort development at Mauds Landing. We see a continuing campaign by the Liberal Party on behalf of a resort and marina development at Mauds Landing. I tell the Liberal Party that the Government will take this issue to the next election campaign. It will be one of many on which the people of Western Australia will have a choice about the future direction of this State. It is interesting to see that the shadow minister, Hon Norman Moore, has questioned the validity of the delegation by the Minister for the Environment, under the Environmental Protection Act 1986, relating to the decision on Mauds Landing. The decision became my decision following the delegation. It was to not approve the proposed Coral Coast Marina Development Pty Ltd resort development for very good environmental reasons. The Government has the very strong view that the Ningaloo Reef and marine park are absolutely vital for the future of Western Australia and it will not accept any proposal that will undermine the integrity of the reef and park. In defence of the position taken by Hon Norman Moore, he gave to the media in the northern parts of Western Australia a copy of the so-called legal advice. It carries no signature, name or date. That tells us something very interesting about the way in which the Liberal Party approaches its responsibilities under our system of government. Will the Leader of the Opposition guarantee that the people of Western Australia get to know who commissioned this so-called legal advice, who paid for the so-called legal advice, what is the legal advice, why it has arisen and why it is being used by the Liberal Party in Western Australia? Will the Leader of the Opposition provide that information to the people of Western Australia? Silence! Mr C.J. Barnett: I can’t get a word in. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Will the Leader of the Opposition provide that information to the people? Mr C.J. Barnett: For a start I don’t know what you are referring to; I haven’t seen it. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is this not very interesting? This is the shadow Minister for State Development. Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you going to listen to the answer? I don’t know what you are referring to. I haven’t seen any legal opinion. However, I ask you a question: did you comply with the Act? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: It is very interesting to observe what is going on in Western Australian politics about the Government’s decision to block the proposed marina and resort development at Mauds Landing. We see a continuing campaign by the Liberal Party on behalf of a resort and marina development at Mauds Landing. I tell the Liberal Party that the Government will take this issue to the next election campaign. It will be one of many on which the people of Western Australia will have a choice about the future direction of this State. It is interesting to see that the shadow minister, Hon Norman Moore, has questioned the validity of the delegation by the Minister for the Environment, under the Environmental Protection Act 1986, relating to the decision on Mauds Landing. The decision became my decision following the delegation. It was to not approve the proposed Coral Coast Marina Development Pty Ltd resort development for very good environmental reasons. The Government has the very strong view that the Ningaloo Reef and marine park are absolutely vital for the future of Western Australia and it will not accept any proposal that will undermine the integrity of the reef and park. In defence of the position taken by Hon Norman Moore, he gave to the media in the northern parts of Western Australia a copy of the so-called legal advice. It carries no signature, name or date. That tells us something very interesting about the way in which the Liberal Party approaches its responsibilities under our system of government. Will the Leader of the Opposition guarantee that the people of Western Australia get to know who commissioned this so-called legal advice, who paid for the so-called legal advice, what is the legal advice, why it has arisen and why it is being used by the Liberal Party in Western Australia? Will the Leader of the Opposition provide that information to the people of Western Australia? Silence! Mr C.J. Barnett: I can’t get a word in. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Will the Leader of the Opposition provide that information to the people? Mr C.J. Barnett: For a start I don’t know what you are referring to; I haven’t seen it. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is this not very interesting? This is the shadow Minister for State Development. Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you going to listen to the answer? I don’t know what you are referring to. I haven’t seen any legal opinion. However, I ask you a question: did you comply with the Act? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
It is very interesting to observe what is going on in Western Australian politics about the Government’s decision to block the proposed marina and resort development at Mauds Landing. We see a continuing campaign by the Liberal Party on behalf of a resort and marina development at Mauds Landing. I tell the Liberal Party that the Government will take this issue to the next election campaign. It will be one of many on which the people of Western Australia will have a choice about the future direction of this State. It is interesting to see that the shadow minister, Hon Norman Moore, has questioned the validity of the delegation by the Minister for the Environment, under the Environmental Protection Act 1986, relating to the decision on Mauds Landing. The decision became my decision following the delegation. It was to not approve the proposed Coral Coast Marina Development Pty Ltd resort development for very good environmental reasons. The Government has the very strong view that the Ningaloo Reef and marine park are absolutely vital for the future of Western Australia and it will not accept any proposal that will undermine the integrity of the reef and park. In defence of the position taken by Hon Norman Moore, he gave to the media in the northern parts of Western Australia a copy of the so-called legal advice. It carries no signature, name or date. That tells us something very interesting about the way in which the Liberal Party approaches its responsibilities under our system of government. Will the Leader of the Opposition guarantee that the people of Western Australia get to know who commissioned this so-called legal advice, who paid for the so-called legal advice, what is the legal advice, why it has arisen and why it is being used by the Liberal Party in Western Australia? Will the Leader of the Opposition provide that information to the people of Western Australia? Silence! Mr C.J. Barnett: I can’t get a word in. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Will the Leader of the Opposition provide that information to the people? Mr C.J. Barnett: For a start I don’t know what you are referring to; I haven’t seen it. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is this not very interesting? This is the shadow Minister for State Development. Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you going to listen to the answer? I don’t know what you are referring to. I haven’t seen any legal opinion. However, I ask you a question: did you comply with the Act? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
In defence of the position taken by Hon Norman Moore, he gave to the media in the northern parts of Western Australia a copy of the so-called legal advice. It carries no signature, name or date. That tells us something very interesting about the way in which the Liberal Party approaches its responsibilities under our system of government. Will the Leader of the Opposition guarantee that the people of Western Australia get to know who commissioned this so-called legal advice, who paid for the so-called legal advice, what is the legal advice, why it has arisen and why it is being used by the Liberal Party in Western Australia? Will the Leader of the Opposition provide that information to the people of Western Australia? Silence! Mr C.J. Barnett: I can’t get a word in. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Will the Leader of the Opposition provide that information to the people? Mr C.J. Barnett: For a start I don’t know what you are referring to; I haven’t seen it. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is this not very interesting? This is the shadow Minister for State Development. Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you going to listen to the answer? I don’t know what you are referring to. I haven’t seen any legal opinion. However, I ask you a question: did you comply with the Act? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. Barnett: I can’t get a word in. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Will the Leader of the Opposition provide that information to the people? Mr C.J. Barnett: For a start I don’t know what you are referring to; I haven’t seen it. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is this not very interesting? This is the shadow Minister for State Development. Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you going to listen to the answer? I don’t know what you are referring to. I haven’t seen any legal opinion. However, I ask you a question: did you comply with the Act? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Will the Leader of the Opposition provide that information to the people? Mr C.J. Barnett: For a start I don’t know what you are referring to; I haven’t seen it. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is this not very interesting? This is the shadow Minister for State Development. Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you going to listen to the answer? I don’t know what you are referring to. I haven’t seen any legal opinion. However, I ask you a question: did you comply with the Act? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. Barnett: For a start I don’t know what you are referring to; I haven’t seen it. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is this not very interesting? This is the shadow Minister for State Development. Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you going to listen to the answer? I don’t know what you are referring to. I haven’t seen any legal opinion. However, I ask you a question: did you comply with the Act? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is this not very interesting? This is the shadow Minister for State Development. Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you going to listen to the answer? I don’t know what you are referring to. I haven’t seen any legal opinion. However, I ask you a question: did you comply with the Act? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you going to listen to the answer? I don’t know what you are referring to. I haven’t seen any legal opinion. However, I ask you a question: did you comply with the Act? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: It is very interesting to observe what is going on in Western Australian politics about the Government’s decision to block the proposed marina and resort development at Mauds Landing. We see a continuing campaign by the Liberal Party on behalf of a resort and marina development at Mauds Landing. I tell the Liberal Party that the Government will take this issue to the next election campaign. It will be one of many on which the people of Western Australia will have a choice about the future direction of this State. It is interesting to see that the shadow minister, Hon Norman Moore, has questioned the validity of the delegation by the Minister for the Environment, under the Environmental Protection Act 1986, relating to the decision on Mauds Landing. The decision became my decision following the delegation. It was to not approve the proposed Coral Coast Marina Development Pty Ltd resort development for very good environmental reasons. The Government has the very strong view that the Ningaloo Reef and marine park are absolutely vital for the future of Western Australia and it will not accept any proposal that will undermine the integrity of the reef and park. In defence of the position taken by Hon Norman Moore, he gave to the media in the northern parts of Western Australia a copy of the so-called legal advice. It carries no signature, name or date. That tells us something very interesting about the way in which the Liberal Party approaches its responsibilities under our system of government. Will the Leader of the Opposition guarantee that the people of Western Australia get to know who commissioned this so-called legal advice, who paid for the so-called legal advice, what is the legal advice, why it has arisen and why it is being used by the Liberal Party in Western Australia? Will the Leader of the Opposition provide that information to the people of Western Australia? Silence! Mr C.J. Barnett: I can’t get a word in. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Will the Leader of the Opposition provide that information to the people? Mr C.J. Barnett: For a start I don’t know what you are referring to; I haven’t seen it. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is this not very interesting? This is the shadow Minister for State Development. Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you going to listen to the answer? I don’t know what you are referring to. I haven’t seen any legal opinion. However, I ask you a question: did you comply with the Act? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
It is very interesting to observe what is going on in Western Australian politics about the Government’s decision to block the proposed marina and resort development at Mauds Landing. We see a continuing campaign by the Liberal Party on behalf of a resort and marina development at Mauds Landing. I tell the Liberal Party that the Government will take this issue to the next election campaign. It will be one of many on which the people of Western Australia will have a choice about the future direction of this State. It is interesting to see that the shadow minister, Hon Norman Moore, has questioned the validity of the delegation by the Minister for the Environment, under the Environmental Protection Act 1986, relating to the decision on Mauds Landing. The decision became my decision following the delegation. It was to not approve the proposed Coral Coast Marina Development Pty Ltd resort development for very good environmental reasons. The Government has the very strong view that the Ningaloo Reef and marine park are absolutely vital for the future of Western Australia and it will not accept any proposal that will undermine the integrity of the reef and park. In defence of the position taken by Hon Norman Moore, he gave to the media in the northern parts of Western Australia a copy of the so-called legal advice. It carries no signature, name or date. That tells us something very interesting about the way in which the Liberal Party approaches its responsibilities under our system of government. Will the Leader of the Opposition guarantee that the people of Western Australia get to know who commissioned this so-called legal advice, who paid for the so-called legal advice, what is the legal advice, why it has arisen and why it is being used by the Liberal Party in Western Australia? Will the Leader of the Opposition provide that information to the people of Western Australia? Silence! Mr C.J. Barnett: I can’t get a word in. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Will the Leader of the Opposition provide that information to the people? Mr C.J. Barnett: For a start I don’t know what you are referring to; I haven’t seen it. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is this not very interesting? This is the shadow Minister for State Development. Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you going to listen to the answer? I don’t know what you are referring to. I haven’t seen any legal opinion. However, I ask you a question: did you comply with the Act? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
In defence of the position taken by Hon Norman Moore, he gave to the media in the northern parts of Western Australia a copy of the so-called legal advice. It carries no signature, name or date. That tells us something very interesting about the way in which the Liberal Party approaches its responsibilities under our system of government. Will the Leader of the Opposition guarantee that the people of Western Australia get to know who commissioned this so-called legal advice, who paid for the so-called legal advice, what is the legal advice, why it has arisen and why it is being used by the Liberal Party in Western Australia? Will the Leader of the Opposition provide that information to the people of Western Australia? Silence! Mr C.J. Barnett: I can’t get a word in. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Will the Leader of the Opposition provide that information to the people? Mr C.J. Barnett: For a start I don’t know what you are referring to; I haven’t seen it. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is this not very interesting? This is the shadow Minister for State Development. Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you going to listen to the answer? I don’t know what you are referring to. I haven’t seen any legal opinion. However, I ask you a question: did you comply with the Act? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. Barnett: I can’t get a word in. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Will the Leader of the Opposition provide that information to the people? Mr C.J. Barnett: For a start I don’t know what you are referring to; I haven’t seen it. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is this not very interesting? This is the shadow Minister for State Development. Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you going to listen to the answer? I don’t know what you are referring to. I haven’t seen any legal opinion. However, I ask you a question: did you comply with the Act? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Will the Leader of the Opposition provide that information to the people? Mr C.J. Barnett: For a start I don’t know what you are referring to; I haven’t seen it. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is this not very interesting? This is the shadow Minister for State Development. Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you going to listen to the answer? I don’t know what you are referring to. I haven’t seen any legal opinion. However, I ask you a question: did you comply with the Act? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. Barnett: For a start I don’t know what you are referring to; I haven’t seen it. Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is this not very interesting? This is the shadow Minister for State Development. Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you going to listen to the answer? I don’t know what you are referring to. I haven’t seen any legal opinion. However, I ask you a question: did you comply with the Act? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Is this not very interesting? This is the shadow Minister for State Development. Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you going to listen to the answer? I don’t know what you are referring to. I haven’t seen any legal opinion. However, I ask you a question: did you comply with the Act? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Are you going to listen to the answer? I don’t know what you are referring to. I haven’t seen any legal opinion. However, I ask you a question: did you comply with the Act? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I certainly did and I will come to that point, Mr Speaker. We base our actions on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. I assure the House that in respect of the decision-making processes and the delegation, we have followed the proper and lawful course. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Nedlands and Kingsley. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: The advice that we use is that given to us by the Crown Solicitor’s Office in Western Australia. Whose advice did the Liberal Party use? Who commissioned that advice? Who paid for that advice? This so-called legal advice, which was handed to members of the media in the north of the State, has an interesting paragraph. It states that there are two reasons the Premier’s decision was bad, and therefore ineffective, and should be annulled. That sounds like pretty profound legal advice! The question that must be answered on this issue is, who commissioned this so-called legal advice? Who paid for this so-called legal advice? Why is the Liberal Party of Western Australia peddling this legal advice around in its debate? Points of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I have not seen the legal advice that the Premier referred to. Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. Gallop: But you are the leader! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: If there is order in this House, Mr Speaker, I would like to continue. The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
The SPEAKER: Continue. Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I have not seen that legal advice. The Premier in his comments referred to Hon Norman Moore as allegedly distributing that opinion. He also implied by his comments that Hon Norman Moore was acting on behalf of a company. Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. Gallop: When did I say that? Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: That was the implication of the Premier’s comments. Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. Gallop: Touchy, touchy! The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: My point of order is that if the Premier has in any way - Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am addressing the Chair. Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr N.R. Marlborough: I am trying to get back into his good books. The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
The SPEAKER: Member for Peel! Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Premier, in my judgment, did impugn the reputation of Hon Norman Moore by implying that in a sense he was acting for the proponents of that project. He alleged that he had acted on the advice, he challenged who had provided the advice and who had paid for it. There is no doubt that the Premier then sought to impugn the integrity of Hon Norman Moore. He implied an improper motive and that Hon Norman Moore was acting analogously to the House of Commons’ questions for cash scenario. I think the Premier had better respond. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: There is no point of order by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Absolutely there is. Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr R.F. Johnson: Of course there is. Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr N.R. Marlborough: There will be no kisses and cuddles with Norman behind the garden shed! The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
The SPEAKER: Members! Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In taking the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition was, firstly, seeking to enter into debate with the Premier on the answer he was giving. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. Barnett: No, he was not. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: That is an abuse of standing orders. There is absolutely no substance to this point of order. Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Yes, there is. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The Leader of the Opposition was simply seeking to start a debate under the guise of taking a point of order. I will come to the substance of some of the issues he raised. The Leader of the Opposition may be very testy that the Opposition and its spokesman on this matter have been behaving quite improperly. That is not what the Premier said. The Leader of the Opposition might have a guilty conscience because he knows things have happened. We would like him to put on record if there has been cash for comments here, which were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, not the Premier. The Premier did not suggest that at all. However, a guilty conscience might have suggested it was cash for comments. There is no point of order, Mr Speaker. The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
The SPEAKER: Both contributors to the points of order took their points further than was required on a point of order. I listened very carefully to what the Premier said and in my view at this stage there is no implication made towards a member of the upper House. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I repeat that when members use legal advice in political debate, it is incumbent upon them to advise the people who elect them who paid for that advice, who commissioned the advice and where it came from. The people of Western Australia deserve to know. Will the Leader of the Opposition accept his responsibilities and make sure there is an answer to that question? Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. Barnett: How do you know it is legal advice? Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I make another observation about the state of the Liberal Party: the shadow Minister for State Development is running a particular line on the proposed Mauds Landing development and the Leader of the Opposition knows absolutely nothing about it. What does that tell us about the Western Australia Liberal Party today? The people deserve an answer to that question. Who commissioned that so-called advice? Who paid for it, and why is the Liberal Party using it? Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Is it legal opinion? Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: The people can observe the Liberal Party on this issue. The Liberal Party supports that development. We know where it is coming from. It wants a resort and marina development to be built that will have the potential to destroy Ningaloo Reef and the marine park. We will make sure that will be an issue at the next election campaign. Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Grow up, Geoff. Grow up. It is immature behaviour for a Premier. Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
Mr N.R. Marlborough interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Peel to order for the second time.
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.