❓ Question regarding the legality of current retail trading hours due to past government actions. The Minister deflects by accusing the previous government of ignoring legal advice.
AnsweredQoN 827Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to the article on page 4 of today’s The West Australian regarding retail trading hours. (1) Will the minister confirm that key aspects of Western Australia’s current retail trading hours regime are unlikely to survive a legal challenge? (2) If the information is correct, how did the situation arise? (3) What will the Government do to rectify the situation? Mr J.C. KOBELKE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. The article in today’s The West Australian correctly reflects key aspects of this issue. It is worth looking quickly at some of the key dates and events. In 1994, the Court Government made changes to retail trading hours by way of ministerial exemption order and regulation. In essence, the changes increased the number of employees who could be employed in a small shop from five to 10 and removed any limitations on the type of goods the shops could sell. In February 1995, the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts were established. The boundaries for the tourism precincts were altered by ministerial order in March 1996. By early April 1995, the Crown Solicitor’s Office started providing advice to the previous Government regarding the limitations of the minister’s exemption powers under sections 5 and 12 of the Act. In May 1995, following a High Court decision on South Australia’s retail hours trading legislation, the Crown Solicitor’s Office advised that the use of exemption orders to effect change to the trading hours scheme was unlawful as it was beyond powers; that is, it is ultra vires. At the same time, after seeking legal advice from a QC, the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation raised concerns about the regulations. The committee accepted the QC’s advice that the amendment to the regulations defeated the legislative intent of the Act. In response, the then minister, Hon Peter Foss, advised the committee that the Act would be amended to address the committee’s concerns and retrospectively validate the regulation. The legislation has not been amended to that effect. Further advice was provided in August 1995 that again advised it was likely a court would find the 1994 exemptions ultra vires. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What are you going to do about it? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Would the member like to explain why she took action contrary to legal advice? It is instructive that the member for Kingsley was the Minister for Fair Trading in March 1996. The then Government was seeking to amend the boundaries of the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts. The minister was provided with legal advice that expressed serious doubt whether the existing and proposed exemption orders would survive a legal challenge. I have a briefing note that I am happy to make available to the member because she may not recall it. It states, in part - By implication a successful challenge could unravel all of the outcomes from the review of the Retail Trading Hours Act, which to this stage have all been introduced by Ministerial exemption and associated amendments to Regulations. It is for these reasons that progress on the Retail Trading Hours Amendment Bill should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive. I am happy to table that document. [See paper No 1200.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
(1) Will the minister confirm that key aspects of Western Australia’s current retail trading hours regime are unlikely to survive a legal challenge? (2) If the information is correct, how did the situation arise? (3) What will the Government do to rectify the situation? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. The article in today’s The West Australian correctly reflects key aspects of this issue. It is worth looking quickly at some of the key dates and events. In 1994, the Court Government made changes to retail trading hours by way of ministerial exemption order and regulation. In essence, the changes increased the number of employees who could be employed in a small shop from five to 10 and removed any limitations on the type of goods the shops could sell. In February 1995, the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts were established. The boundaries for the tourism precincts were altered by ministerial order in March 1996. By early April 1995, the Crown Solicitor’s Office started providing advice to the previous Government regarding the limitations of the minister’s exemption powers under sections 5 and 12 of the Act. In May 1995, following a High Court decision on South Australia’s retail hours trading legislation, the Crown Solicitor’s Office advised that the use of exemption orders to effect change to the trading hours scheme was unlawful as it was beyond powers; that is, it is ultra vires. At the same time, after seeking legal advice from a QC, the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation raised concerns about the regulations. The committee accepted the QC’s advice that the amendment to the regulations defeated the legislative intent of the Act. In response, the then minister, Hon Peter Foss, advised the committee that the Act would be amended to address the committee’s concerns and retrospectively validate the regulation. The legislation has not been amended to that effect. Further advice was provided in August 1995 that again advised it was likely a court would find the 1994 exemptions ultra vires. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What are you going to do about it? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Would the member like to explain why she took action contrary to legal advice? It is instructive that the member for Kingsley was the Minister for Fair Trading in March 1996. The then Government was seeking to amend the boundaries of the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts. The minister was provided with legal advice that expressed serious doubt whether the existing and proposed exemption orders would survive a legal challenge. I have a briefing note that I am happy to make available to the member because she may not recall it. It states, in part - By implication a successful challenge could unravel all of the outcomes from the review of the Retail Trading Hours Act, which to this stage have all been introduced by Ministerial exemption and associated amendments to Regulations. It is for these reasons that progress on the Retail Trading Hours Amendment Bill should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive. I am happy to table that document. [See paper No 1200.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
(2) If the information is correct, how did the situation arise? (3) What will the Government do to rectify the situation? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. The article in today’s The West Australian correctly reflects key aspects of this issue. It is worth looking quickly at some of the key dates and events. In 1994, the Court Government made changes to retail trading hours by way of ministerial exemption order and regulation. In essence, the changes increased the number of employees who could be employed in a small shop from five to 10 and removed any limitations on the type of goods the shops could sell. In February 1995, the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts were established. The boundaries for the tourism precincts were altered by ministerial order in March 1996. By early April 1995, the Crown Solicitor’s Office started providing advice to the previous Government regarding the limitations of the minister’s exemption powers under sections 5 and 12 of the Act. In May 1995, following a High Court decision on South Australia’s retail hours trading legislation, the Crown Solicitor’s Office advised that the use of exemption orders to effect change to the trading hours scheme was unlawful as it was beyond powers; that is, it is ultra vires. At the same time, after seeking legal advice from a QC, the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation raised concerns about the regulations. The committee accepted the QC’s advice that the amendment to the regulations defeated the legislative intent of the Act. In response, the then minister, Hon Peter Foss, advised the committee that the Act would be amended to address the committee’s concerns and retrospectively validate the regulation. The legislation has not been amended to that effect. Further advice was provided in August 1995 that again advised it was likely a court would find the 1994 exemptions ultra vires. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What are you going to do about it? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Would the member like to explain why she took action contrary to legal advice? It is instructive that the member for Kingsley was the Minister for Fair Trading in March 1996. The then Government was seeking to amend the boundaries of the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts. The minister was provided with legal advice that expressed serious doubt whether the existing and proposed exemption orders would survive a legal challenge. I have a briefing note that I am happy to make available to the member because she may not recall it. It states, in part - By implication a successful challenge could unravel all of the outcomes from the review of the Retail Trading Hours Act, which to this stage have all been introduced by Ministerial exemption and associated amendments to Regulations. It is for these reasons that progress on the Retail Trading Hours Amendment Bill should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive. I am happy to table that document. [See paper No 1200.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
(3) What will the Government do to rectify the situation? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. The article in today’s The West Australian correctly reflects key aspects of this issue. It is worth looking quickly at some of the key dates and events. In 1994, the Court Government made changes to retail trading hours by way of ministerial exemption order and regulation. In essence, the changes increased the number of employees who could be employed in a small shop from five to 10 and removed any limitations on the type of goods the shops could sell. In February 1995, the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts were established. The boundaries for the tourism precincts were altered by ministerial order in March 1996. By early April 1995, the Crown Solicitor’s Office started providing advice to the previous Government regarding the limitations of the minister’s exemption powers under sections 5 and 12 of the Act. In May 1995, following a High Court decision on South Australia’s retail hours trading legislation, the Crown Solicitor’s Office advised that the use of exemption orders to effect change to the trading hours scheme was unlawful as it was beyond powers; that is, it is ultra vires. At the same time, after seeking legal advice from a QC, the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation raised concerns about the regulations. The committee accepted the QC’s advice that the amendment to the regulations defeated the legislative intent of the Act. In response, the then minister, Hon Peter Foss, advised the committee that the Act would be amended to address the committee’s concerns and retrospectively validate the regulation. The legislation has not been amended to that effect. Further advice was provided in August 1995 that again advised it was likely a court would find the 1994 exemptions ultra vires. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What are you going to do about it? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Would the member like to explain why she took action contrary to legal advice? It is instructive that the member for Kingsley was the Minister for Fair Trading in March 1996. The then Government was seeking to amend the boundaries of the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts. The minister was provided with legal advice that expressed serious doubt whether the existing and proposed exemption orders would survive a legal challenge. I have a briefing note that I am happy to make available to the member because she may not recall it. It states, in part - By implication a successful challenge could unravel all of the outcomes from the review of the Retail Trading Hours Act, which to this stage have all been introduced by Ministerial exemption and associated amendments to Regulations. It is for these reasons that progress on the Retail Trading Hours Amendment Bill should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive. I am happy to table that document. [See paper No 1200.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. The article in today’s The West Australian correctly reflects key aspects of this issue. It is worth looking quickly at some of the key dates and events. In 1994, the Court Government made changes to retail trading hours by way of ministerial exemption order and regulation. In essence, the changes increased the number of employees who could be employed in a small shop from five to 10 and removed any limitations on the type of goods the shops could sell. In February 1995, the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts were established. The boundaries for the tourism precincts were altered by ministerial order in March 1996. By early April 1995, the Crown Solicitor’s Office started providing advice to the previous Government regarding the limitations of the minister’s exemption powers under sections 5 and 12 of the Act. In May 1995, following a High Court decision on South Australia’s retail hours trading legislation, the Crown Solicitor’s Office advised that the use of exemption orders to effect change to the trading hours scheme was unlawful as it was beyond powers; that is, it is ultra vires. At the same time, after seeking legal advice from a QC, the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation raised concerns about the regulations. The committee accepted the QC’s advice that the amendment to the regulations defeated the legislative intent of the Act. In response, the then minister, Hon Peter Foss, advised the committee that the Act would be amended to address the committee’s concerns and retrospectively validate the regulation. The legislation has not been amended to that effect. Further advice was provided in August 1995 that again advised it was likely a court would find the 1994 exemptions ultra vires. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What are you going to do about it? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Would the member like to explain why she took action contrary to legal advice? It is instructive that the member for Kingsley was the Minister for Fair Trading in March 1996. The then Government was seeking to amend the boundaries of the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts. The minister was provided with legal advice that expressed serious doubt whether the existing and proposed exemption orders would survive a legal challenge. I have a briefing note that I am happy to make available to the member because she may not recall it. It states, in part - By implication a successful challenge could unravel all of the outcomes from the review of the Retail Trading Hours Act, which to this stage have all been introduced by Ministerial exemption and associated amendments to Regulations. It is for these reasons that progress on the Retail Trading Hours Amendment Bill should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive. I am happy to table that document. [See paper No 1200.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
(1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. The article in today’s The West Australian correctly reflects key aspects of this issue. It is worth looking quickly at some of the key dates and events. In 1994, the Court Government made changes to retail trading hours by way of ministerial exemption order and regulation. In essence, the changes increased the number of employees who could be employed in a small shop from five to 10 and removed any limitations on the type of goods the shops could sell. In February 1995, the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts were established. The boundaries for the tourism precincts were altered by ministerial order in March 1996. By early April 1995, the Crown Solicitor’s Office started providing advice to the previous Government regarding the limitations of the minister’s exemption powers under sections 5 and 12 of the Act. In May 1995, following a High Court decision on South Australia’s retail hours trading legislation, the Crown Solicitor’s Office advised that the use of exemption orders to effect change to the trading hours scheme was unlawful as it was beyond powers; that is, it is ultra vires. At the same time, after seeking legal advice from a QC, the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation raised concerns about the regulations. The committee accepted the QC’s advice that the amendment to the regulations defeated the legislative intent of the Act. In response, the then minister, Hon Peter Foss, advised the committee that the Act would be amended to address the committee’s concerns and retrospectively validate the regulation. The legislation has not been amended to that effect. Further advice was provided in August 1995 that again advised it was likely a court would find the 1994 exemptions ultra vires. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What are you going to do about it? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Would the member like to explain why she took action contrary to legal advice? It is instructive that the member for Kingsley was the Minister for Fair Trading in March 1996. The then Government was seeking to amend the boundaries of the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts. The minister was provided with legal advice that expressed serious doubt whether the existing and proposed exemption orders would survive a legal challenge. I have a briefing note that I am happy to make available to the member because she may not recall it. It states, in part - By implication a successful challenge could unravel all of the outcomes from the review of the Retail Trading Hours Act, which to this stage have all been introduced by Ministerial exemption and associated amendments to Regulations. It is for these reasons that progress on the Retail Trading Hours Amendment Bill should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive. I am happy to table that document. [See paper No 1200.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What are you going to do about it? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Would the member like to explain why she took action contrary to legal advice? It is instructive that the member for Kingsley was the Minister for Fair Trading in March 1996. The then Government was seeking to amend the boundaries of the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts. The minister was provided with legal advice that expressed serious doubt whether the existing and proposed exemption orders would survive a legal challenge. I have a briefing note that I am happy to make available to the member because she may not recall it. It states, in part - By implication a successful challenge could unravel all of the outcomes from the review of the Retail Trading Hours Act, which to this stage have all been introduced by Ministerial exemption and associated amendments to Regulations. It is for these reasons that progress on the Retail Trading Hours Amendment Bill should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive. I am happy to table that document. [See paper No 1200.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Would the member like to explain why she took action contrary to legal advice? It is instructive that the member for Kingsley was the Minister for Fair Trading in March 1996. The then Government was seeking to amend the boundaries of the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts. The minister was provided with legal advice that expressed serious doubt whether the existing and proposed exemption orders would survive a legal challenge. I have a briefing note that I am happy to make available to the member because she may not recall it. It states, in part - By implication a successful challenge could unravel all of the outcomes from the review of the Retail Trading Hours Act, which to this stage have all been introduced by Ministerial exemption and associated amendments to Regulations. It is for these reasons that progress on the Retail Trading Hours Amendment Bill should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive. I am happy to table that document. [See paper No 1200.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
It is for these reasons that progress on the Retail Trading Hours Amendment Bill should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive.
In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive.
[See paper No 1200.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
(1) Will the minister confirm that key aspects of Western Australia’s current retail trading hours regime are unlikely to survive a legal challenge? (2) If the information is correct, how did the situation arise? (3) What will the Government do to rectify the situation? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. The article in today’s The West Australian correctly reflects key aspects of this issue. It is worth looking quickly at some of the key dates and events. In 1994, the Court Government made changes to retail trading hours by way of ministerial exemption order and regulation. In essence, the changes increased the number of employees who could be employed in a small shop from five to 10 and removed any limitations on the type of goods the shops could sell. In February 1995, the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts were established. The boundaries for the tourism precincts were altered by ministerial order in March 1996. By early April 1995, the Crown Solicitor’s Office started providing advice to the previous Government regarding the limitations of the minister’s exemption powers under sections 5 and 12 of the Act. In May 1995, following a High Court decision on South Australia’s retail hours trading legislation, the Crown Solicitor’s Office advised that the use of exemption orders to effect change to the trading hours scheme was unlawful as it was beyond powers; that is, it is ultra vires. At the same time, after seeking legal advice from a QC, the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation raised concerns about the regulations. The committee accepted the QC’s advice that the amendment to the regulations defeated the legislative intent of the Act. In response, the then minister, Hon Peter Foss, advised the committee that the Act would be amended to address the committee’s concerns and retrospectively validate the regulation. The legislation has not been amended to that effect. Further advice was provided in August 1995 that again advised it was likely a court would find the 1994 exemptions ultra vires. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What are you going to do about it? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Would the member like to explain why she took action contrary to legal advice? It is instructive that the member for Kingsley was the Minister for Fair Trading in March 1996. The then Government was seeking to amend the boundaries of the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts. The minister was provided with legal advice that expressed serious doubt whether the existing and proposed exemption orders would survive a legal challenge. I have a briefing note that I am happy to make available to the member because she may not recall it. It states, in part - By implication a successful challenge could unravel all of the outcomes from the review of the Retail Trading Hours Act, which to this stage have all been introduced by Ministerial exemption and associated amendments to Regulations. It is for these reasons that progress on the Retail Trading Hours Amendment Bill should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive. I am happy to table that document. [See paper No 1200.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
(2) If the information is correct, how did the situation arise? (3) What will the Government do to rectify the situation? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. The article in today’s The West Australian correctly reflects key aspects of this issue. It is worth looking quickly at some of the key dates and events. In 1994, the Court Government made changes to retail trading hours by way of ministerial exemption order and regulation. In essence, the changes increased the number of employees who could be employed in a small shop from five to 10 and removed any limitations on the type of goods the shops could sell. In February 1995, the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts were established. The boundaries for the tourism precincts were altered by ministerial order in March 1996. By early April 1995, the Crown Solicitor’s Office started providing advice to the previous Government regarding the limitations of the minister’s exemption powers under sections 5 and 12 of the Act. In May 1995, following a High Court decision on South Australia’s retail hours trading legislation, the Crown Solicitor’s Office advised that the use of exemption orders to effect change to the trading hours scheme was unlawful as it was beyond powers; that is, it is ultra vires. At the same time, after seeking legal advice from a QC, the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation raised concerns about the regulations. The committee accepted the QC’s advice that the amendment to the regulations defeated the legislative intent of the Act. In response, the then minister, Hon Peter Foss, advised the committee that the Act would be amended to address the committee’s concerns and retrospectively validate the regulation. The legislation has not been amended to that effect. Further advice was provided in August 1995 that again advised it was likely a court would find the 1994 exemptions ultra vires. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What are you going to do about it? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Would the member like to explain why she took action contrary to legal advice? It is instructive that the member for Kingsley was the Minister for Fair Trading in March 1996. The then Government was seeking to amend the boundaries of the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts. The minister was provided with legal advice that expressed serious doubt whether the existing and proposed exemption orders would survive a legal challenge. I have a briefing note that I am happy to make available to the member because she may not recall it. It states, in part - By implication a successful challenge could unravel all of the outcomes from the review of the Retail Trading Hours Act, which to this stage have all been introduced by Ministerial exemption and associated amendments to Regulations. It is for these reasons that progress on the Retail Trading Hours Amendment Bill should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive. I am happy to table that document. [See paper No 1200.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
(3) What will the Government do to rectify the situation? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. The article in today’s The West Australian correctly reflects key aspects of this issue. It is worth looking quickly at some of the key dates and events. In 1994, the Court Government made changes to retail trading hours by way of ministerial exemption order and regulation. In essence, the changes increased the number of employees who could be employed in a small shop from five to 10 and removed any limitations on the type of goods the shops could sell. In February 1995, the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts were established. The boundaries for the tourism precincts were altered by ministerial order in March 1996. By early April 1995, the Crown Solicitor’s Office started providing advice to the previous Government regarding the limitations of the minister’s exemption powers under sections 5 and 12 of the Act. In May 1995, following a High Court decision on South Australia’s retail hours trading legislation, the Crown Solicitor’s Office advised that the use of exemption orders to effect change to the trading hours scheme was unlawful as it was beyond powers; that is, it is ultra vires. At the same time, after seeking legal advice from a QC, the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation raised concerns about the regulations. The committee accepted the QC’s advice that the amendment to the regulations defeated the legislative intent of the Act. In response, the then minister, Hon Peter Foss, advised the committee that the Act would be amended to address the committee’s concerns and retrospectively validate the regulation. The legislation has not been amended to that effect. Further advice was provided in August 1995 that again advised it was likely a court would find the 1994 exemptions ultra vires. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What are you going to do about it? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Would the member like to explain why she took action contrary to legal advice? It is instructive that the member for Kingsley was the Minister for Fair Trading in March 1996. The then Government was seeking to amend the boundaries of the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts. The minister was provided with legal advice that expressed serious doubt whether the existing and proposed exemption orders would survive a legal challenge. I have a briefing note that I am happy to make available to the member because she may not recall it. It states, in part - By implication a successful challenge could unravel all of the outcomes from the review of the Retail Trading Hours Act, which to this stage have all been introduced by Ministerial exemption and associated amendments to Regulations. It is for these reasons that progress on the Retail Trading Hours Amendment Bill should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive. I am happy to table that document. [See paper No 1200.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. The article in today’s The West Australian correctly reflects key aspects of this issue. It is worth looking quickly at some of the key dates and events. In 1994, the Court Government made changes to retail trading hours by way of ministerial exemption order and regulation. In essence, the changes increased the number of employees who could be employed in a small shop from five to 10 and removed any limitations on the type of goods the shops could sell. In February 1995, the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts were established. The boundaries for the tourism precincts were altered by ministerial order in March 1996. By early April 1995, the Crown Solicitor’s Office started providing advice to the previous Government regarding the limitations of the minister’s exemption powers under sections 5 and 12 of the Act. In May 1995, following a High Court decision on South Australia’s retail hours trading legislation, the Crown Solicitor’s Office advised that the use of exemption orders to effect change to the trading hours scheme was unlawful as it was beyond powers; that is, it is ultra vires. At the same time, after seeking legal advice from a QC, the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation raised concerns about the regulations. The committee accepted the QC’s advice that the amendment to the regulations defeated the legislative intent of the Act. In response, the then minister, Hon Peter Foss, advised the committee that the Act would be amended to address the committee’s concerns and retrospectively validate the regulation. The legislation has not been amended to that effect. Further advice was provided in August 1995 that again advised it was likely a court would find the 1994 exemptions ultra vires. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What are you going to do about it? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Would the member like to explain why she took action contrary to legal advice? It is instructive that the member for Kingsley was the Minister for Fair Trading in March 1996. The then Government was seeking to amend the boundaries of the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts. The minister was provided with legal advice that expressed serious doubt whether the existing and proposed exemption orders would survive a legal challenge. I have a briefing note that I am happy to make available to the member because she may not recall it. It states, in part - By implication a successful challenge could unravel all of the outcomes from the review of the Retail Trading Hours Act, which to this stage have all been introduced by Ministerial exemption and associated amendments to Regulations. It is for these reasons that progress on the Retail Trading Hours Amendment Bill should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive. I am happy to table that document. [See paper No 1200.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
(1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. The article in today’s The West Australian correctly reflects key aspects of this issue. It is worth looking quickly at some of the key dates and events. In 1994, the Court Government made changes to retail trading hours by way of ministerial exemption order and regulation. In essence, the changes increased the number of employees who could be employed in a small shop from five to 10 and removed any limitations on the type of goods the shops could sell. In February 1995, the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts were established. The boundaries for the tourism precincts were altered by ministerial order in March 1996. By early April 1995, the Crown Solicitor’s Office started providing advice to the previous Government regarding the limitations of the minister’s exemption powers under sections 5 and 12 of the Act. In May 1995, following a High Court decision on South Australia’s retail hours trading legislation, the Crown Solicitor’s Office advised that the use of exemption orders to effect change to the trading hours scheme was unlawful as it was beyond powers; that is, it is ultra vires. At the same time, after seeking legal advice from a QC, the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation raised concerns about the regulations. The committee accepted the QC’s advice that the amendment to the regulations defeated the legislative intent of the Act. In response, the then minister, Hon Peter Foss, advised the committee that the Act would be amended to address the committee’s concerns and retrospectively validate the regulation. The legislation has not been amended to that effect. Further advice was provided in August 1995 that again advised it was likely a court would find the 1994 exemptions ultra vires. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What are you going to do about it? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Would the member like to explain why she took action contrary to legal advice? It is instructive that the member for Kingsley was the Minister for Fair Trading in March 1996. The then Government was seeking to amend the boundaries of the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts. The minister was provided with legal advice that expressed serious doubt whether the existing and proposed exemption orders would survive a legal challenge. I have a briefing note that I am happy to make available to the member because she may not recall it. It states, in part - By implication a successful challenge could unravel all of the outcomes from the review of the Retail Trading Hours Act, which to this stage have all been introduced by Ministerial exemption and associated amendments to Regulations. It is for these reasons that progress on the Retail Trading Hours Amendment Bill should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive. I am happy to table that document. [See paper No 1200.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What are you going to do about it? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Would the member like to explain why she took action contrary to legal advice? It is instructive that the member for Kingsley was the Minister for Fair Trading in March 1996. The then Government was seeking to amend the boundaries of the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts. The minister was provided with legal advice that expressed serious doubt whether the existing and proposed exemption orders would survive a legal challenge. I have a briefing note that I am happy to make available to the member because she may not recall it. It states, in part - By implication a successful challenge could unravel all of the outcomes from the review of the Retail Trading Hours Act, which to this stage have all been introduced by Ministerial exemption and associated amendments to Regulations. It is for these reasons that progress on the Retail Trading Hours Amendment Bill should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive. I am happy to table that document. [See paper No 1200.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Would the member like to explain why she took action contrary to legal advice? It is instructive that the member for Kingsley was the Minister for Fair Trading in March 1996. The then Government was seeking to amend the boundaries of the Perth and Fremantle tourism precincts. The minister was provided with legal advice that expressed serious doubt whether the existing and proposed exemption orders would survive a legal challenge. I have a briefing note that I am happy to make available to the member because she may not recall it. It states, in part - By implication a successful challenge could unravel all of the outcomes from the review of the Retail Trading Hours Act, which to this stage have all been introduced by Ministerial exemption and associated amendments to Regulations. It is for these reasons that progress on the Retail Trading Hours Amendment Bill should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive. I am happy to table that document. [See paper No 1200.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
It is for these reasons that progress on the Retail Trading Hours Amendment Bill should be reconsidered as a matter of urgency. In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive.
In the meantime opinion on the legal soundness of the proposed Tourism Precincts Order is far from conclusive.
[See paper No 1200.] Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: In spite of that, and a whole range of other advice, within days the member for Kingsley, as the minister, simply swept aside the legal advice and signed a new regulation which she had no power to do. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I offer the member for Kingsley the opportunity to give some explanation for not taking account of that legal advice. Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: What is your point? What are you going to do? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I have offered the member the opportunity to at least give an explanation, but she will not, because she knows there is no explanation for the Liberal Party stepping outside the rule of law. Members of the Liberal Party are not interested in upholding the rule of law. As far as this mob is concerned, the law is a tool to be played with for their own use; they have no respect for the law of this State, and that is why they are sitting in opposition. The member is not willing to give an explanation. We will clean up the rotten mess, as we did with the finance brokers and many other areas - the rotten, stinking mess that this mob created when it was in government! They had no respect for the laws of this State.
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.