❓ Ms MacTiernan questions Premier Court about the ministerial code of conduct, declarations of interest related to the Westrail sale to Wesfarmers, and potential conflicts of interest. Premier Court responds by tabling documents, defending his ministers, and attacking the previous Labor government's record.

AnsweredQoN 335Legislative Assembly

Asked

16 November 2000

Member

QuestionView source ↗

(1) Will the Premier table the ministerial code currently used by the Government for declarations of interest by cabinet ministers? (2) Did the Minister for Transport and the Deputy Premier declare their and their spouses' shareholdings in Wesfarmers Ltd to the Premier prior to consideration of the sale of Westrail freight to the Wesfarmers consortium? (3) What form did these declarations take? (4) Will the Premier advise which, if any, minister withdrew from cabinet deliberations on the Westrail sale because of a conflict of interest? (5) Will the Premier table the portion of the cabinet decision sheet that records the declaration of interest? Mr COURT

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I will table the ministerial codes. However, things have moved on since a ministerial code was developed at the end of Labor's 10 years in government. Parts of that code have been superseded, both by legislation and by the circulars to ministers that have gone out on a number of issues. Ms MacTiernan: So you don't have a code. Mr COURT: Before the member for Armadale gets too excited, she should just listen. I said that I will table all the documentation the member wants. Ministerial standards are constantly being updated, and we use circulars to inform ministers. The circulars cover areas such as guidelines for the use of official vehicles, overseas travel expense reports, reports on consultants engaged by government, ministerial overseas travel, guidelines for the use of credit cards, taxis and ministerial offices, guidelines for expenditure on official hospitality, and the acceptance and donation gifts by ministers. The cabinet handbook was updated in 1996 to cover those areas. I table that handbook. [See paper No 497.] Mr COURT: That is constantly updated with circulars to ministers - unlike the Labor Party which brought about a form of code of conduct in the dying days of its term in government. The material that the member for Armadale wants is in paragraph 1.5 of the handbook. (2)-(4) Before this matter was discussed in Cabinet a number of ministers advised they had small shareholdings in Wesfarmers Ltd. As the member for Armadale knows, that is declared in their pecuniary interest statement. Those ministers wanted to stay in the Cabinet for that discussion. They did not see a conflict of interest. In the case of the Minister for Transport, I was not aware that his shares had been disposed of to his wife. I had assumed that they were as per his pecuniary interest statement. His shares were valued at around $23 000. On a capitalisation of $4.2b the minister's shareholding was .0006 per cent of that organisation. Under the Government's recommendations for declarations of interest, minor shareholdings should not be presumed to create a conflict of interest. The Deputy Premier, in particular, was emphatic that this was a critical decision for his constituency in the bush. He made it clear that he would participate in those discussions. Dr Gallop: The Minister for Transport breached your guidelines. Mr COURT: No, he did not. That is because no minister considered that he or she had a conflict of interest. Ms MacTiernan: Premier, will you tell us which ministers? Mr COURT: Kids have little toys that they wind up, and then they gradually wind down. Will the member for Armadale wind down a little so that we can get on with this? (5) In accordance with the longstanding convention observed by all Governments, contemporary cabinet records are not disclosed. I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
(2) Did the Minister for Transport and the Deputy Premier declare their and their spouses' shareholdings in Wesfarmers Ltd to the Premier prior to consideration of the sale of Westrail freight to the Wesfarmers consortium? (3) What form did these declarations take? (4) Will the Premier advise which, if any, minister withdrew from cabinet deliberations on the Westrail sale because of a conflict of interest? (5) Will the Premier table the portion of the cabinet decision sheet that records the declaration of interest? Mr COURT replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I will table the ministerial codes. However, things have moved on since a ministerial code was developed at the end of Labor's 10 years in government. Parts of that code have been superseded, both by legislation and by the circulars to ministers that have gone out on a number of issues. Ms MacTiernan: So you don't have a code. Mr COURT: Before the member for Armadale gets too excited, she should just listen. I said that I will table all the documentation the member wants. Ministerial standards are constantly being updated, and we use circulars to inform ministers. The circulars cover areas such as guidelines for the use of official vehicles, overseas travel expense reports, reports on consultants engaged by government, ministerial overseas travel, guidelines for the use of credit cards, taxis and ministerial offices, guidelines for expenditure on official hospitality, and the acceptance and donation gifts by ministers. The cabinet handbook was updated in 1996 to cover those areas. I table that handbook. [See paper No 497.] Mr COURT: That is constantly updated with circulars to ministers - unlike the Labor Party which brought about a form of code of conduct in the dying days of its term in government. The material that the member for Armadale wants is in paragraph 1.5 of the handbook. (2)-(4) Before this matter was discussed in Cabinet a number of ministers advised they had small shareholdings in Wesfarmers Ltd. As the member for Armadale knows, that is declared in their pecuniary interest statement. Those ministers wanted to stay in the Cabinet for that discussion. They did not see a conflict of interest. In the case of the Minister for Transport, I was not aware that his shares had been disposed of to his wife. I had assumed that they were as per his pecuniary interest statement. His shares were valued at around $23 000. On a capitalisation of $4.2b the minister's shareholding was .0006 per cent of that organisation. Under the Government's recommendations for declarations of interest, minor shareholdings should not be presumed to create a conflict of interest. The Deputy Premier, in particular, was emphatic that this was a critical decision for his constituency in the bush. He made it clear that he would participate in those discussions. Dr Gallop: The Minister for Transport breached your guidelines. Mr COURT: No, he did not. That is because no minister considered that he or she had a conflict of interest. Ms MacTiernan: Premier, will you tell us which ministers? Mr COURT: Kids have little toys that they wind up, and then they gradually wind down. Will the member for Armadale wind down a little so that we can get on with this? (5) In accordance with the longstanding convention observed by all Governments, contemporary cabinet records are not disclosed. I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
(3) What form did these declarations take? (4) Will the Premier advise which, if any, minister withdrew from cabinet deliberations on the Westrail sale because of a conflict of interest? (5) Will the Premier table the portion of the cabinet decision sheet that records the declaration of interest? Mr COURT replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I will table the ministerial codes. However, things have moved on since a ministerial code was developed at the end of Labor's 10 years in government. Parts of that code have been superseded, both by legislation and by the circulars to ministers that have gone out on a number of issues. Ms MacTiernan: So you don't have a code. Mr COURT: Before the member for Armadale gets too excited, she should just listen. I said that I will table all the documentation the member wants. Ministerial standards are constantly being updated, and we use circulars to inform ministers. The circulars cover areas such as guidelines for the use of official vehicles, overseas travel expense reports, reports on consultants engaged by government, ministerial overseas travel, guidelines for the use of credit cards, taxis and ministerial offices, guidelines for expenditure on official hospitality, and the acceptance and donation gifts by ministers. The cabinet handbook was updated in 1996 to cover those areas. I table that handbook. [See paper No 497.] Mr COURT: That is constantly updated with circulars to ministers - unlike the Labor Party which brought about a form of code of conduct in the dying days of its term in government. The material that the member for Armadale wants is in paragraph 1.5 of the handbook. (2)-(4) Before this matter was discussed in Cabinet a number of ministers advised they had small shareholdings in Wesfarmers Ltd. As the member for Armadale knows, that is declared in their pecuniary interest statement. Those ministers wanted to stay in the Cabinet for that discussion. They did not see a conflict of interest. In the case of the Minister for Transport, I was not aware that his shares had been disposed of to his wife. I had assumed that they were as per his pecuniary interest statement. His shares were valued at around $23 000. On a capitalisation of $4.2b the minister's shareholding was .0006 per cent of that organisation. Under the Government's recommendations for declarations of interest, minor shareholdings should not be presumed to create a conflict of interest. The Deputy Premier, in particular, was emphatic that this was a critical decision for his constituency in the bush. He made it clear that he would participate in those discussions. Dr Gallop: The Minister for Transport breached your guidelines. Mr COURT: No, he did not. That is because no minister considered that he or she had a conflict of interest. Ms MacTiernan: Premier, will you tell us which ministers? Mr COURT: Kids have little toys that they wind up, and then they gradually wind down. Will the member for Armadale wind down a little so that we can get on with this? (5) In accordance with the longstanding convention observed by all Governments, contemporary cabinet records are not disclosed. I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
(4) Will the Premier advise which, if any, minister withdrew from cabinet deliberations on the Westrail sale because of a conflict of interest? (5) Will the Premier table the portion of the cabinet decision sheet that records the declaration of interest? Mr COURT replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I will table the ministerial codes. However, things have moved on since a ministerial code was developed at the end of Labor's 10 years in government. Parts of that code have been superseded, both by legislation and by the circulars to ministers that have gone out on a number of issues. Ms MacTiernan: So you don't have a code. Mr COURT: Before the member for Armadale gets too excited, she should just listen. I said that I will table all the documentation the member wants. Ministerial standards are constantly being updated, and we use circulars to inform ministers. The circulars cover areas such as guidelines for the use of official vehicles, overseas travel expense reports, reports on consultants engaged by government, ministerial overseas travel, guidelines for the use of credit cards, taxis and ministerial offices, guidelines for expenditure on official hospitality, and the acceptance and donation gifts by ministers. The cabinet handbook was updated in 1996 to cover those areas. I table that handbook. [See paper No 497.] Mr COURT: That is constantly updated with circulars to ministers - unlike the Labor Party which brought about a form of code of conduct in the dying days of its term in government. The material that the member for Armadale wants is in paragraph 1.5 of the handbook. (2)-(4) Before this matter was discussed in Cabinet a number of ministers advised they had small shareholdings in Wesfarmers Ltd. As the member for Armadale knows, that is declared in their pecuniary interest statement. Those ministers wanted to stay in the Cabinet for that discussion. They did not see a conflict of interest. In the case of the Minister for Transport, I was not aware that his shares had been disposed of to his wife. I had assumed that they were as per his pecuniary interest statement. His shares were valued at around $23 000. On a capitalisation of $4.2b the minister's shareholding was .0006 per cent of that organisation. Under the Government's recommendations for declarations of interest, minor shareholdings should not be presumed to create a conflict of interest. The Deputy Premier, in particular, was emphatic that this was a critical decision for his constituency in the bush. He made it clear that he would participate in those discussions. Dr Gallop: The Minister for Transport breached your guidelines. Mr COURT: No, he did not. That is because no minister considered that he or she had a conflict of interest. Ms MacTiernan: Premier, will you tell us which ministers? Mr COURT: Kids have little toys that they wind up, and then they gradually wind down. Will the member for Armadale wind down a little so that we can get on with this? (5) In accordance with the longstanding convention observed by all Governments, contemporary cabinet records are not disclosed. I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
(5) Will the Premier table the portion of the cabinet decision sheet that records the declaration of interest? Mr COURT replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I will table the ministerial codes. However, things have moved on since a ministerial code was developed at the end of Labor's 10 years in government. Parts of that code have been superseded, both by legislation and by the circulars to ministers that have gone out on a number of issues. Ms MacTiernan: So you don't have a code. Mr COURT: Before the member for Armadale gets too excited, she should just listen. I said that I will table all the documentation the member wants. Ministerial standards are constantly being updated, and we use circulars to inform ministers. The circulars cover areas such as guidelines for the use of official vehicles, overseas travel expense reports, reports on consultants engaged by government, ministerial overseas travel, guidelines for the use of credit cards, taxis and ministerial offices, guidelines for expenditure on official hospitality, and the acceptance and donation gifts by ministers. The cabinet handbook was updated in 1996 to cover those areas. I table that handbook. [See paper No 497.] Mr COURT: That is constantly updated with circulars to ministers - unlike the Labor Party which brought about a form of code of conduct in the dying days of its term in government. The material that the member for Armadale wants is in paragraph 1.5 of the handbook. (2)-(4) Before this matter was discussed in Cabinet a number of ministers advised they had small shareholdings in Wesfarmers Ltd. As the member for Armadale knows, that is declared in their pecuniary interest statement. Those ministers wanted to stay in the Cabinet for that discussion. They did not see a conflict of interest. In the case of the Minister for Transport, I was not aware that his shares had been disposed of to his wife. I had assumed that they were as per his pecuniary interest statement. His shares were valued at around $23 000. On a capitalisation of $4.2b the minister's shareholding was .0006 per cent of that organisation. Under the Government's recommendations for declarations of interest, minor shareholdings should not be presumed to create a conflict of interest. The Deputy Premier, in particular, was emphatic that this was a critical decision for his constituency in the bush. He made it clear that he would participate in those discussions. Dr Gallop: The Minister for Transport breached your guidelines. Mr COURT: No, he did not. That is because no minister considered that he or she had a conflict of interest. Ms MacTiernan: Premier, will you tell us which ministers? Mr COURT: Kids have little toys that they wind up, and then they gradually wind down. Will the member for Armadale wind down a little so that we can get on with this? (5) In accordance with the longstanding convention observed by all Governments, contemporary cabinet records are not disclosed. I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
Mr COURT replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I will table the ministerial codes. However, things have moved on since a ministerial code was developed at the end of Labor's 10 years in government. Parts of that code have been superseded, both by legislation and by the circulars to ministers that have gone out on a number of issues. Ms MacTiernan: So you don't have a code. Mr COURT: Before the member for Armadale gets too excited, she should just listen. I said that I will table all the documentation the member wants. Ministerial standards are constantly being updated, and we use circulars to inform ministers. The circulars cover areas such as guidelines for the use of official vehicles, overseas travel expense reports, reports on consultants engaged by government, ministerial overseas travel, guidelines for the use of credit cards, taxis and ministerial offices, guidelines for expenditure on official hospitality, and the acceptance and donation gifts by ministers. The cabinet handbook was updated in 1996 to cover those areas. I table that handbook. [See paper No 497.] Mr COURT: That is constantly updated with circulars to ministers - unlike the Labor Party which brought about a form of code of conduct in the dying days of its term in government. The material that the member for Armadale wants is in paragraph 1.5 of the handbook. (2)-(4) Before this matter was discussed in Cabinet a number of ministers advised they had small shareholdings in Wesfarmers Ltd. As the member for Armadale knows, that is declared in their pecuniary interest statement. Those ministers wanted to stay in the Cabinet for that discussion. They did not see a conflict of interest. In the case of the Minister for Transport, I was not aware that his shares had been disposed of to his wife. I had assumed that they were as per his pecuniary interest statement. His shares were valued at around $23 000. On a capitalisation of $4.2b the minister's shareholding was .0006 per cent of that organisation. Under the Government's recommendations for declarations of interest, minor shareholdings should not be presumed to create a conflict of interest. The Deputy Premier, in particular, was emphatic that this was a critical decision for his constituency in the bush. He made it clear that he would participate in those discussions. Dr Gallop: The Minister for Transport breached your guidelines. Mr COURT: No, he did not. That is because no minister considered that he or she had a conflict of interest. Ms MacTiernan: Premier, will you tell us which ministers? Mr COURT: Kids have little toys that they wind up, and then they gradually wind down. Will the member for Armadale wind down a little so that we can get on with this? (5) In accordance with the longstanding convention observed by all Governments, contemporary cabinet records are not disclosed. I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) I will table the ministerial codes. However, things have moved on since a ministerial code was developed at the end of Labor's 10 years in government. Parts of that code have been superseded, both by legislation and by the circulars to ministers that have gone out on a number of issues. Ms MacTiernan: So you don't have a code. Mr COURT: Before the member for Armadale gets too excited, she should just listen. I said that I will table all the documentation the member wants. Ministerial standards are constantly being updated, and we use circulars to inform ministers. The circulars cover areas such as guidelines for the use of official vehicles, overseas travel expense reports, reports on consultants engaged by government, ministerial overseas travel, guidelines for the use of credit cards, taxis and ministerial offices, guidelines for expenditure on official hospitality, and the acceptance and donation gifts by ministers. The cabinet handbook was updated in 1996 to cover those areas. I table that handbook. [See paper No 497.] Mr COURT: That is constantly updated with circulars to ministers - unlike the Labor Party which brought about a form of code of conduct in the dying days of its term in government. The material that the member for Armadale wants is in paragraph 1.5 of the handbook. (2)-(4) Before this matter was discussed in Cabinet a number of ministers advised they had small shareholdings in Wesfarmers Ltd. As the member for Armadale knows, that is declared in their pecuniary interest statement. Those ministers wanted to stay in the Cabinet for that discussion. They did not see a conflict of interest. In the case of the Minister for Transport, I was not aware that his shares had been disposed of to his wife. I had assumed that they were as per his pecuniary interest statement. His shares were valued at around $23 000. On a capitalisation of $4.2b the minister's shareholding was .0006 per cent of that organisation. Under the Government's recommendations for declarations of interest, minor shareholdings should not be presumed to create a conflict of interest. The Deputy Premier, in particular, was emphatic that this was a critical decision for his constituency in the bush. He made it clear that he would participate in those discussions. Dr Gallop: The Minister for Transport breached your guidelines. Mr COURT: No, he did not. That is because no minister considered that he or she had a conflict of interest. Ms MacTiernan: Premier, will you tell us which ministers? Mr COURT: Kids have little toys that they wind up, and then they gradually wind down. Will the member for Armadale wind down a little so that we can get on with this? (5) In accordance with the longstanding convention observed by all Governments, contemporary cabinet records are not disclosed. I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
(1) I will table the ministerial codes. However, things have moved on since a ministerial code was developed at the end of Labor's 10 years in government. Parts of that code have been superseded, both by legislation and by the circulars to ministers that have gone out on a number of issues. Ms MacTiernan: So you don't have a code. Mr COURT: Before the member for Armadale gets too excited, she should just listen. I said that I will table all the documentation the member wants. Ministerial standards are constantly being updated, and we use circulars to inform ministers. The circulars cover areas such as guidelines for the use of official vehicles, overseas travel expense reports, reports on consultants engaged by government, ministerial overseas travel, guidelines for the use of credit cards, taxis and ministerial offices, guidelines for expenditure on official hospitality, and the acceptance and donation gifts by ministers. The cabinet handbook was updated in 1996 to cover those areas. I table that handbook. [See paper No 497.] Mr COURT: That is constantly updated with circulars to ministers - unlike the Labor Party which brought about a form of code of conduct in the dying days of its term in government. The material that the member for Armadale wants is in paragraph 1.5 of the handbook. (2)-(4) Before this matter was discussed in Cabinet a number of ministers advised they had small shareholdings in Wesfarmers Ltd. As the member for Armadale knows, that is declared in their pecuniary interest statement. Those ministers wanted to stay in the Cabinet for that discussion. They did not see a conflict of interest. In the case of the Minister for Transport, I was not aware that his shares had been disposed of to his wife. I had assumed that they were as per his pecuniary interest statement. His shares were valued at around $23 000. On a capitalisation of $4.2b the minister's shareholding was .0006 per cent of that organisation. Under the Government's recommendations for declarations of interest, minor shareholdings should not be presumed to create a conflict of interest. The Deputy Premier, in particular, was emphatic that this was a critical decision for his constituency in the bush. He made it clear that he would participate in those discussions. Dr Gallop: The Minister for Transport breached your guidelines. Mr COURT: No, he did not. That is because no minister considered that he or she had a conflict of interest. Ms MacTiernan: Premier, will you tell us which ministers? Mr COURT: Kids have little toys that they wind up, and then they gradually wind down. Will the member for Armadale wind down a little so that we can get on with this? (5) In accordance with the longstanding convention observed by all Governments, contemporary cabinet records are not disclosed. I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
Ms MacTiernan: So you don't have a code. Mr COURT: Before the member for Armadale gets too excited, she should just listen. I said that I will table all the documentation the member wants. Ministerial standards are constantly being updated, and we use circulars to inform ministers. The circulars cover areas such as guidelines for the use of official vehicles, overseas travel expense reports, reports on consultants engaged by government, ministerial overseas travel, guidelines for the use of credit cards, taxis and ministerial offices, guidelines for expenditure on official hospitality, and the acceptance and donation gifts by ministers. The cabinet handbook was updated in 1996 to cover those areas. I table that handbook. [See paper No 497.] Mr COURT: That is constantly updated with circulars to ministers - unlike the Labor Party which brought about a form of code of conduct in the dying days of its term in government. The material that the member for Armadale wants is in paragraph 1.5 of the handbook. (2)-(4) Before this matter was discussed in Cabinet a number of ministers advised they had small shareholdings in Wesfarmers Ltd. As the member for Armadale knows, that is declared in their pecuniary interest statement. Those ministers wanted to stay in the Cabinet for that discussion. They did not see a conflict of interest. In the case of the Minister for Transport, I was not aware that his shares had been disposed of to his wife. I had assumed that they were as per his pecuniary interest statement. His shares were valued at around $23 000. On a capitalisation of $4.2b the minister's shareholding was .0006 per cent of that organisation. Under the Government's recommendations for declarations of interest, minor shareholdings should not be presumed to create a conflict of interest. The Deputy Premier, in particular, was emphatic that this was a critical decision for his constituency in the bush. He made it clear that he would participate in those discussions. Dr Gallop: The Minister for Transport breached your guidelines. Mr COURT: No, he did not. That is because no minister considered that he or she had a conflict of interest. Ms MacTiernan: Premier, will you tell us which ministers? Mr COURT: Kids have little toys that they wind up, and then they gradually wind down. Will the member for Armadale wind down a little so that we can get on with this? (5) In accordance with the longstanding convention observed by all Governments, contemporary cabinet records are not disclosed. I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
Mr COURT: Before the member for Armadale gets too excited, she should just listen. I said that I will table all the documentation the member wants. Ministerial standards are constantly being updated, and we use circulars to inform ministers. The circulars cover areas such as guidelines for the use of official vehicles, overseas travel expense reports, reports on consultants engaged by government, ministerial overseas travel, guidelines for the use of credit cards, taxis and ministerial offices, guidelines for expenditure on official hospitality, and the acceptance and donation gifts by ministers. The cabinet handbook was updated in 1996 to cover those areas. I table that handbook. [See paper No 497.] Mr COURT: That is constantly updated with circulars to ministers - unlike the Labor Party which brought about a form of code of conduct in the dying days of its term in government. The material that the member for Armadale wants is in paragraph 1.5 of the handbook. (2)-(4) Before this matter was discussed in Cabinet a number of ministers advised they had small shareholdings in Wesfarmers Ltd. As the member for Armadale knows, that is declared in their pecuniary interest statement. Those ministers wanted to stay in the Cabinet for that discussion. They did not see a conflict of interest. In the case of the Minister for Transport, I was not aware that his shares had been disposed of to his wife. I had assumed that they were as per his pecuniary interest statement. His shares were valued at around $23 000. On a capitalisation of $4.2b the minister's shareholding was .0006 per cent of that organisation. Under the Government's recommendations for declarations of interest, minor shareholdings should not be presumed to create a conflict of interest. The Deputy Premier, in particular, was emphatic that this was a critical decision for his constituency in the bush. He made it clear that he would participate in those discussions. Dr Gallop: The Minister for Transport breached your guidelines. Mr COURT: No, he did not. That is because no minister considered that he or she had a conflict of interest. Ms MacTiernan: Premier, will you tell us which ministers? Mr COURT: Kids have little toys that they wind up, and then they gradually wind down. Will the member for Armadale wind down a little so that we can get on with this? (5) In accordance with the longstanding convention observed by all Governments, contemporary cabinet records are not disclosed. I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
[See paper No 497.] Mr COURT: That is constantly updated with circulars to ministers - unlike the Labor Party which brought about a form of code of conduct in the dying days of its term in government. The material that the member for Armadale wants is in paragraph 1.5 of the handbook. (2)-(4) Before this matter was discussed in Cabinet a number of ministers advised they had small shareholdings in Wesfarmers Ltd. As the member for Armadale knows, that is declared in their pecuniary interest statement. Those ministers wanted to stay in the Cabinet for that discussion. They did not see a conflict of interest. In the case of the Minister for Transport, I was not aware that his shares had been disposed of to his wife. I had assumed that they were as per his pecuniary interest statement. His shares were valued at around $23 000. On a capitalisation of $4.2b the minister's shareholding was .0006 per cent of that organisation. Under the Government's recommendations for declarations of interest, minor shareholdings should not be presumed to create a conflict of interest. The Deputy Premier, in particular, was emphatic that this was a critical decision for his constituency in the bush. He made it clear that he would participate in those discussions. Dr Gallop: The Minister for Transport breached your guidelines. Mr COURT: No, he did not. That is because no minister considered that he or she had a conflict of interest. Ms MacTiernan: Premier, will you tell us which ministers? Mr COURT: Kids have little toys that they wind up, and then they gradually wind down. Will the member for Armadale wind down a little so that we can get on with this? (5) In accordance with the longstanding convention observed by all Governments, contemporary cabinet records are not disclosed. I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
Mr COURT: That is constantly updated with circulars to ministers - unlike the Labor Party which brought about a form of code of conduct in the dying days of its term in government. The material that the member for Armadale wants is in paragraph 1.5 of the handbook. (2)-(4) Before this matter was discussed in Cabinet a number of ministers advised they had small shareholdings in Wesfarmers Ltd. As the member for Armadale knows, that is declared in their pecuniary interest statement. Those ministers wanted to stay in the Cabinet for that discussion. They did not see a conflict of interest. In the case of the Minister for Transport, I was not aware that his shares had been disposed of to his wife. I had assumed that they were as per his pecuniary interest statement. His shares were valued at around $23 000. On a capitalisation of $4.2b the minister's shareholding was .0006 per cent of that organisation. Under the Government's recommendations for declarations of interest, minor shareholdings should not be presumed to create a conflict of interest. The Deputy Premier, in particular, was emphatic that this was a critical decision for his constituency in the bush. He made it clear that he would participate in those discussions. Dr Gallop: The Minister for Transport breached your guidelines. Mr COURT: No, he did not. That is because no minister considered that he or she had a conflict of interest. Ms MacTiernan: Premier, will you tell us which ministers? Mr COURT: Kids have little toys that they wind up, and then they gradually wind down. Will the member for Armadale wind down a little so that we can get on with this? (5) In accordance with the longstanding convention observed by all Governments, contemporary cabinet records are not disclosed. I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
(2)-(4) Before this matter was discussed in Cabinet a number of ministers advised they had small shareholdings in Wesfarmers Ltd. As the member for Armadale knows, that is declared in their pecuniary interest statement. Those ministers wanted to stay in the Cabinet for that discussion. They did not see a conflict of interest. In the case of the Minister for Transport, I was not aware that his shares had been disposed of to his wife. I had assumed that they were as per his pecuniary interest statement. His shares were valued at around $23 000. On a capitalisation of $4.2b the minister's shareholding was .0006 per cent of that organisation. Under the Government's recommendations for declarations of interest, minor shareholdings should not be presumed to create a conflict of interest. The Deputy Premier, in particular, was emphatic that this was a critical decision for his constituency in the bush. He made it clear that he would participate in those discussions. Dr Gallop: The Minister for Transport breached your guidelines. Mr COURT: No, he did not. That is because no minister considered that he or she had a conflict of interest. Ms MacTiernan: Premier, will you tell us which ministers? Mr COURT: Kids have little toys that they wind up, and then they gradually wind down. Will the member for Armadale wind down a little so that we can get on with this? (5) In accordance with the longstanding convention observed by all Governments, contemporary cabinet records are not disclosed. I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
Dr Gallop: The Minister for Transport breached your guidelines. Mr COURT: No, he did not. That is because no minister considered that he or she had a conflict of interest. Ms MacTiernan: Premier, will you tell us which ministers? Mr COURT: Kids have little toys that they wind up, and then they gradually wind down. Will the member for Armadale wind down a little so that we can get on with this? (5) In accordance with the longstanding convention observed by all Governments, contemporary cabinet records are not disclosed. I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
Mr COURT: No, he did not. That is because no minister considered that he or she had a conflict of interest. Ms MacTiernan: Premier, will you tell us which ministers? Mr COURT: Kids have little toys that they wind up, and then they gradually wind down. Will the member for Armadale wind down a little so that we can get on with this? (5) In accordance with the longstanding convention observed by all Governments, contemporary cabinet records are not disclosed. I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
Ms MacTiernan: Premier, will you tell us which ministers? Mr COURT: Kids have little toys that they wind up, and then they gradually wind down. Will the member for Armadale wind down a little so that we can get on with this? (5) In accordance with the longstanding convention observed by all Governments, contemporary cabinet records are not disclosed. I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
Mr COURT: Kids have little toys that they wind up, and then they gradually wind down. Will the member for Armadale wind down a little so that we can get on with this? (5) In accordance with the longstanding convention observed by all Governments, contemporary cabinet records are not disclosed. I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
(5) In accordance with the longstanding convention observed by all Governments, contemporary cabinet records are not disclosed. I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
I mentioned the 10 years of a Labor Government. I want to give an example of Labor's standards of ministerial conduct. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters produced eight volumes of reports on how the Labor Party acted in government. I was flicking through the volumes, and I will read out some points. Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
Several members interjected. Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
Mr COURT: The member for Armadale asked the question; she wants to talk about ministerial accountability. The report states - Mr Anderson met . . . - Labor ministers - - in Derby . . . He said he told them that he wanted his $50 million back and, if not, "I’ll put Rothwells into liquidation and I’ll also go for your throat". That is how a Labor Government operated. I mentioned that case because we are still in court over that matter, and the way members opposite acted in government I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
I will go on and tell members about the weekend that Rothwells needed some liquidity, and the Labor Government got the State Energy Commission of Western Australia to prepay between $15m and $20m worth of coal sales, so it could help its mates in Rothwells. That speaks for itself. The Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government and Other Matters is the Labor Party's record on ministerial conduct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.
The SPEAKER: Order! I remind members, particularly the member for Burrup that, although I have changed the rules and will allow more interjections from opposition members to these difficult questions, that does not mean everyone should interject at the same time.

View on Parliament of WA