❓ Question regarding claims that the WA Parliament will sit part-time next year. The Leader of the House refutes the claims, citing sitting week numbers from previous years under the former government.
AnsweredQoN 1018Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Is the Leader of the House aware of claims made in the media yesterday that next year this House will sit only part time? Mr J.C. KOBELKE
AnswerView source ↗
I was quite astounded when the member for Whitfords, as the manager of opposition business, yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Member for Hillarys. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Sorry. Point of Order Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It is the courtesy in this place to refer to members by their correct electorate name. The Leader of the House did not do that. The SPEAKER: I think the Leader of the House inadvertently called the member for Hillarys the member for Whitfords. I am sure the Leader of the House will refer to him as the member for Hillarys. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I certainly will. The member for Hillarys spoke about the sitting weeks for next year and said that we would sit part-time. He went on to say that Parliament would very often sit for about 22 or 24 weeks. He said that in the last year of the coalition Government the Parliament sat at least two more weeks than this Government has suggested for next year. It is becoming a standard practice for members of the Liberal Party to say things that are totally untrue and have no relevance to the truth. We have laid down a program, which has been tabled, to sit for 20 weeks next year. In 2000, prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat in this House for 19 weeks. Anyone can check that. Prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat for 19 weeks and prior to the 1996 election, the coalition Government sat for 18 weeks. It requires some creative mathematics for the Opposition to say that this Government will sit for fewer weeks when during two election years the coalition Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks and we will sit for 20 weeks next year. The member for Hillarys’ claim that the former Government often sat for about two weeks more than we are proposing next year - Mr R.F. Johnson: Are we going to have an early election? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Does the member for Hillarys want to correct the record? Mr R.F. Johnson: No, but I will say that eight months before the next election, you want us to sit for only eight weeks. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I was quite astounded when the member for Whitfords, as the manager of opposition business, yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Member for Hillarys. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Sorry. Point of Order Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It is the courtesy in this place to refer to members by their correct electorate name. The Leader of the House did not do that. The SPEAKER: I think the Leader of the House inadvertently called the member for Hillarys the member for Whitfords. I am sure the Leader of the House will refer to him as the member for Hillarys. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I certainly will. The member for Hillarys spoke about the sitting weeks for next year and said that we would sit part-time. He went on to say that Parliament would very often sit for about 22 or 24 weeks. He said that in the last year of the coalition Government the Parliament sat at least two more weeks than this Government has suggested for next year. It is becoming a standard practice for members of the Liberal Party to say things that are totally untrue and have no relevance to the truth. We have laid down a program, which has been tabled, to sit for 20 weeks next year. In 2000, prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat in this House for 19 weeks. Anyone can check that. Prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat for 19 weeks and prior to the 1996 election, the coalition Government sat for 18 weeks. It requires some creative mathematics for the Opposition to say that this Government will sit for fewer weeks when during two election years the coalition Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks and we will sit for 20 weeks next year. The member for Hillarys’ claim that the former Government often sat for about two weeks more than we are proposing next year - Mr R.F. Johnson: Are we going to have an early election? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Does the member for Hillarys want to correct the record? Mr R.F. Johnson: No, but I will say that eight months before the next election, you want us to sit for only eight weeks. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
I was quite astounded when the member for Whitfords, as the manager of opposition business, yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Member for Hillarys. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Sorry. Point of Order Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It is the courtesy in this place to refer to members by their correct electorate name. The Leader of the House did not do that. The SPEAKER: I think the Leader of the House inadvertently called the member for Hillarys the member for Whitfords. I am sure the Leader of the House will refer to him as the member for Hillarys. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I certainly will. The member for Hillarys spoke about the sitting weeks for next year and said that we would sit part-time. He went on to say that Parliament would very often sit for about 22 or 24 weeks. He said that in the last year of the coalition Government the Parliament sat at least two more weeks than this Government has suggested for next year. It is becoming a standard practice for members of the Liberal Party to say things that are totally untrue and have no relevance to the truth. We have laid down a program, which has been tabled, to sit for 20 weeks next year. In 2000, prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat in this House for 19 weeks. Anyone can check that. Prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat for 19 weeks and prior to the 1996 election, the coalition Government sat for 18 weeks. It requires some creative mathematics for the Opposition to say that this Government will sit for fewer weeks when during two election years the coalition Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks and we will sit for 20 weeks next year. The member for Hillarys’ claim that the former Government often sat for about two weeks more than we are proposing next year - Mr R.F. Johnson: Are we going to have an early election? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Does the member for Hillarys want to correct the record? Mr R.F. Johnson: No, but I will say that eight months before the next election, you want us to sit for only eight weeks. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Member for Hillarys. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Sorry. Point of Order Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It is the courtesy in this place to refer to members by their correct electorate name. The Leader of the House did not do that. The SPEAKER: I think the Leader of the House inadvertently called the member for Hillarys the member for Whitfords. I am sure the Leader of the House will refer to him as the member for Hillarys. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I certainly will. The member for Hillarys spoke about the sitting weeks for next year and said that we would sit part-time. He went on to say that Parliament would very often sit for about 22 or 24 weeks. He said that in the last year of the coalition Government the Parliament sat at least two more weeks than this Government has suggested for next year. It is becoming a standard practice for members of the Liberal Party to say things that are totally untrue and have no relevance to the truth. We have laid down a program, which has been tabled, to sit for 20 weeks next year. In 2000, prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat in this House for 19 weeks. Anyone can check that. Prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat for 19 weeks and prior to the 1996 election, the coalition Government sat for 18 weeks. It requires some creative mathematics for the Opposition to say that this Government will sit for fewer weeks when during two election years the coalition Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks and we will sit for 20 weeks next year. The member for Hillarys’ claim that the former Government often sat for about two weeks more than we are proposing next year - Mr R.F. Johnson: Are we going to have an early election? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Does the member for Hillarys want to correct the record? Mr R.F. Johnson: No, but I will say that eight months before the next election, you want us to sit for only eight weeks. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Sorry. Point of Order Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It is the courtesy in this place to refer to members by their correct electorate name. The Leader of the House did not do that. The SPEAKER: I think the Leader of the House inadvertently called the member for Hillarys the member for Whitfords. I am sure the Leader of the House will refer to him as the member for Hillarys. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I certainly will. The member for Hillarys spoke about the sitting weeks for next year and said that we would sit part-time. He went on to say that Parliament would very often sit for about 22 or 24 weeks. He said that in the last year of the coalition Government the Parliament sat at least two more weeks than this Government has suggested for next year. It is becoming a standard practice for members of the Liberal Party to say things that are totally untrue and have no relevance to the truth. We have laid down a program, which has been tabled, to sit for 20 weeks next year. In 2000, prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat in this House for 19 weeks. Anyone can check that. Prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat for 19 weeks and prior to the 1996 election, the coalition Government sat for 18 weeks. It requires some creative mathematics for the Opposition to say that this Government will sit for fewer weeks when during two election years the coalition Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks and we will sit for 20 weeks next year. The member for Hillarys’ claim that the former Government often sat for about two weeks more than we are proposing next year - Mr R.F. Johnson: Are we going to have an early election? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Does the member for Hillarys want to correct the record? Mr R.F. Johnson: No, but I will say that eight months before the next election, you want us to sit for only eight weeks. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
The SPEAKER: I think the Leader of the House inadvertently called the member for Hillarys the member for Whitfords. I am sure the Leader of the House will refer to him as the member for Hillarys. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I certainly will. The member for Hillarys spoke about the sitting weeks for next year and said that we would sit part-time. He went on to say that Parliament would very often sit for about 22 or 24 weeks. He said that in the last year of the coalition Government the Parliament sat at least two more weeks than this Government has suggested for next year. It is becoming a standard practice for members of the Liberal Party to say things that are totally untrue and have no relevance to the truth. We have laid down a program, which has been tabled, to sit for 20 weeks next year. In 2000, prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat in this House for 19 weeks. Anyone can check that. Prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat for 19 weeks and prior to the 1996 election, the coalition Government sat for 18 weeks. It requires some creative mathematics for the Opposition to say that this Government will sit for fewer weeks when during two election years the coalition Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks and we will sit for 20 weeks next year. The member for Hillarys’ claim that the former Government often sat for about two weeks more than we are proposing next year - Mr R.F. Johnson: Are we going to have an early election? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Does the member for Hillarys want to correct the record? Mr R.F. Johnson: No, but I will say that eight months before the next election, you want us to sit for only eight weeks. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr R.F. Johnson: Are we going to have an early election? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Does the member for Hillarys want to correct the record? Mr R.F. Johnson: No, but I will say that eight months before the next election, you want us to sit for only eight weeks. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Does the member for Hillarys want to correct the record? Mr R.F. Johnson: No, but I will say that eight months before the next election, you want us to sit for only eight weeks. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr R.F. Johnson: No, but I will say that eight months before the next election, you want us to sit for only eight weeks. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I was quite astounded when the member for Whitfords, as the manager of opposition business, yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Member for Hillarys. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Sorry. Point of Order Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It is the courtesy in this place to refer to members by their correct electorate name. The Leader of the House did not do that. The SPEAKER: I think the Leader of the House inadvertently called the member for Hillarys the member for Whitfords. I am sure the Leader of the House will refer to him as the member for Hillarys. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I certainly will. The member for Hillarys spoke about the sitting weeks for next year and said that we would sit part-time. He went on to say that Parliament would very often sit for about 22 or 24 weeks. He said that in the last year of the coalition Government the Parliament sat at least two more weeks than this Government has suggested for next year. It is becoming a standard practice for members of the Liberal Party to say things that are totally untrue and have no relevance to the truth. We have laid down a program, which has been tabled, to sit for 20 weeks next year. In 2000, prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat in this House for 19 weeks. Anyone can check that. Prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat for 19 weeks and prior to the 1996 election, the coalition Government sat for 18 weeks. It requires some creative mathematics for the Opposition to say that this Government will sit for fewer weeks when during two election years the coalition Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks and we will sit for 20 weeks next year. The member for Hillarys’ claim that the former Government often sat for about two weeks more than we are proposing next year - Mr R.F. Johnson: Are we going to have an early election? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Does the member for Hillarys want to correct the record? Mr R.F. Johnson: No, but I will say that eight months before the next election, you want us to sit for only eight weeks. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
I was quite astounded when the member for Whitfords, as the manager of opposition business, yesterday - Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Member for Hillarys. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Sorry. Point of Order Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It is the courtesy in this place to refer to members by their correct electorate name. The Leader of the House did not do that. The SPEAKER: I think the Leader of the House inadvertently called the member for Hillarys the member for Whitfords. I am sure the Leader of the House will refer to him as the member for Hillarys. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I certainly will. The member for Hillarys spoke about the sitting weeks for next year and said that we would sit part-time. He went on to say that Parliament would very often sit for about 22 or 24 weeks. He said that in the last year of the coalition Government the Parliament sat at least two more weeks than this Government has suggested for next year. It is becoming a standard practice for members of the Liberal Party to say things that are totally untrue and have no relevance to the truth. We have laid down a program, which has been tabled, to sit for 20 weeks next year. In 2000, prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat in this House for 19 weeks. Anyone can check that. Prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat for 19 weeks and prior to the 1996 election, the coalition Government sat for 18 weeks. It requires some creative mathematics for the Opposition to say that this Government will sit for fewer weeks when during two election years the coalition Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks and we will sit for 20 weeks next year. The member for Hillarys’ claim that the former Government often sat for about two weeks more than we are proposing next year - Mr R.F. Johnson: Are we going to have an early election? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Does the member for Hillarys want to correct the record? Mr R.F. Johnson: No, but I will say that eight months before the next election, you want us to sit for only eight weeks. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mrs C.L. Edwardes: Member for Hillarys. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Sorry. Point of Order Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It is the courtesy in this place to refer to members by their correct electorate name. The Leader of the House did not do that. The SPEAKER: I think the Leader of the House inadvertently called the member for Hillarys the member for Whitfords. I am sure the Leader of the House will refer to him as the member for Hillarys. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I certainly will. The member for Hillarys spoke about the sitting weeks for next year and said that we would sit part-time. He went on to say that Parliament would very often sit for about 22 or 24 weeks. He said that in the last year of the coalition Government the Parliament sat at least two more weeks than this Government has suggested for next year. It is becoming a standard practice for members of the Liberal Party to say things that are totally untrue and have no relevance to the truth. We have laid down a program, which has been tabled, to sit for 20 weeks next year. In 2000, prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat in this House for 19 weeks. Anyone can check that. Prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat for 19 weeks and prior to the 1996 election, the coalition Government sat for 18 weeks. It requires some creative mathematics for the Opposition to say that this Government will sit for fewer weeks when during two election years the coalition Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks and we will sit for 20 weeks next year. The member for Hillarys’ claim that the former Government often sat for about two weeks more than we are proposing next year - Mr R.F. Johnson: Are we going to have an early election? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Does the member for Hillarys want to correct the record? Mr R.F. Johnson: No, but I will say that eight months before the next election, you want us to sit for only eight weeks. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Sorry. Point of Order Mr R.F. JOHNSON: It is the courtesy in this place to refer to members by their correct electorate name. The Leader of the House did not do that. The SPEAKER: I think the Leader of the House inadvertently called the member for Hillarys the member for Whitfords. I am sure the Leader of the House will refer to him as the member for Hillarys. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I certainly will. The member for Hillarys spoke about the sitting weeks for next year and said that we would sit part-time. He went on to say that Parliament would very often sit for about 22 or 24 weeks. He said that in the last year of the coalition Government the Parliament sat at least two more weeks than this Government has suggested for next year. It is becoming a standard practice for members of the Liberal Party to say things that are totally untrue and have no relevance to the truth. We have laid down a program, which has been tabled, to sit for 20 weeks next year. In 2000, prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat in this House for 19 weeks. Anyone can check that. Prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat for 19 weeks and prior to the 1996 election, the coalition Government sat for 18 weeks. It requires some creative mathematics for the Opposition to say that this Government will sit for fewer weeks when during two election years the coalition Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks and we will sit for 20 weeks next year. The member for Hillarys’ claim that the former Government often sat for about two weeks more than we are proposing next year - Mr R.F. Johnson: Are we going to have an early election? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Does the member for Hillarys want to correct the record? Mr R.F. Johnson: No, but I will say that eight months before the next election, you want us to sit for only eight weeks. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
The SPEAKER: I think the Leader of the House inadvertently called the member for Hillarys the member for Whitfords. I am sure the Leader of the House will refer to him as the member for Hillarys. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr J.C. KOBELKE: I certainly will. The member for Hillarys spoke about the sitting weeks for next year and said that we would sit part-time. He went on to say that Parliament would very often sit for about 22 or 24 weeks. He said that in the last year of the coalition Government the Parliament sat at least two more weeks than this Government has suggested for next year. It is becoming a standard practice for members of the Liberal Party to say things that are totally untrue and have no relevance to the truth. We have laid down a program, which has been tabled, to sit for 20 weeks next year. In 2000, prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat in this House for 19 weeks. Anyone can check that. Prior to the 2001 election, the coalition Government sat for 19 weeks and prior to the 1996 election, the coalition Government sat for 18 weeks. It requires some creative mathematics for the Opposition to say that this Government will sit for fewer weeks when during two election years the coalition Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks and we will sit for 20 weeks next year. The member for Hillarys’ claim that the former Government often sat for about two weeks more than we are proposing next year - Mr R.F. Johnson: Are we going to have an early election? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Does the member for Hillarys want to correct the record? Mr R.F. Johnson: No, but I will say that eight months before the next election, you want us to sit for only eight weeks. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr R.F. Johnson: Are we going to have an early election? Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Does the member for Hillarys want to correct the record? Mr R.F. Johnson: No, but I will say that eight months before the next election, you want us to sit for only eight weeks. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Does the member for Hillarys want to correct the record? Mr R.F. Johnson: No, but I will say that eight months before the next election, you want us to sit for only eight weeks. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr R.F. Johnson: No, but I will say that eight months before the next election, you want us to sit for only eight weeks. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: We will never get an apology from the member. The Liberal frontbench finds the truth anathema. The leader of opposition business in this House said on radio yesterday that we would sit only part-time next year. He said that this Government’s program proposes fewer sitting weeks than the previous Government. However, it is not too hard to look up the official records and count the number of weeks the former Government sat in the years prior to an election being held and compare it with the number of sitting weeks proposed by this Government, which it tabled here only a few days ago. The Government has scheduled 20 weeks of sitting next year and in two years the former Government sat for 18 and 19 weeks, yet the member for Hillarys went on radio and said something that was totally contrary to the facts. When given the opportunity to correct it - Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr R.F. Johnson: No, not at all. You also said that there was no point sitting late next year because the Council won’t be sitting. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: The member said on radio yesterday that we would usually sit for about 22 or 24 weeks of the year. The member said that the former Government sat for two more weeks that the Government is proposing to sit next year. We have the tape and the transcript of what the member said. Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr R.F. Johnson: We are sitting 24 weeks this year. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: No, the member said that in the last years of the previous Government, it sat for two more weeks than the Government has suggested sitting next year. The previous Government did not. Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr R.F. Johnson: You are a very clever man. You are trying to mix words. The reason we did not sit at that time is we went to an election in December, because we held an early election. Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE: Why did you tell people on radio that you did? Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
Mr R.F. Johnson: Unless the Government is going to an election in December next year, and that is why it has not scheduled so many sitting weeks, then in the last eight months before the normal election time we will sit for only eight weeks. The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
The SPEAKER: This is a prime example of why the minister should not take interjections. This question has occupied sufficient time of the House. I call for the next question.
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.