❓ Question regarding allegations of the WA Tourism Commission creating a 'slush fund' by cutting the offshore marketing budget. The Minister denies the claims, stating the funds were reallocated for a 'future marketing initiatives fund' to respond to new opportunities.
AnsweredQoN 399Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I ask the Minister for Tourism - Dr G.I. Gallop: Have you got an apology yet? Mrs C.A. MARTIN: No, actually; but I am not complaining about that. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mrs C.A. MARTIN: Excuse me, this is my question! The SPEAKER: Member for Kimberley! It is inappropriate to interject from either side of the Chamber. It disrupts the questioner asking the questions. Mrs C.A. MARTIN: I refer to opposition claims that the Government has cut the Western Australian Tourism Commission’s offshore marketing budget to create a slush fund, and ask - (1) Has the minister investigated the allegation? (2) Is there any truth in the claim made by the Opposition? Mr C.M. BROWN
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
Dr G.I. Gallop: Have you got an apology yet? Mrs C.A. MARTIN: No, actually; but I am not complaining about that. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mrs C.A. MARTIN: Excuse me, this is my question! The SPEAKER: Member for Kimberley! It is inappropriate to interject from either side of the Chamber. It disrupts the questioner asking the questions. Mrs C.A. MARTIN: I refer to opposition claims that the Government has cut the Western Australian Tourism Commission’s offshore marketing budget to create a slush fund, and ask - (1) Has the minister investigated the allegation? (2) Is there any truth in the claim made by the Opposition? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
Mrs C.A. MARTIN: No, actually; but I am not complaining about that. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mrs C.A. MARTIN: Excuse me, this is my question! The SPEAKER: Member for Kimberley! It is inappropriate to interject from either side of the Chamber. It disrupts the questioner asking the questions. Mrs C.A. MARTIN: I refer to opposition claims that the Government has cut the Western Australian Tourism Commission’s offshore marketing budget to create a slush fund, and ask - (1) Has the minister investigated the allegation? (2) Is there any truth in the claim made by the Opposition? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mrs C.A. MARTIN: Excuse me, this is my question! The SPEAKER: Member for Kimberley! It is inappropriate to interject from either side of the Chamber. It disrupts the questioner asking the questions. Mrs C.A. MARTIN: I refer to opposition claims that the Government has cut the Western Australian Tourism Commission’s offshore marketing budget to create a slush fund, and ask - (1) Has the minister investigated the allegation? (2) Is there any truth in the claim made by the Opposition? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
Mrs C.A. MARTIN: Excuse me, this is my question! The SPEAKER: Member for Kimberley! It is inappropriate to interject from either side of the Chamber. It disrupts the questioner asking the questions. Mrs C.A. MARTIN: I refer to opposition claims that the Government has cut the Western Australian Tourism Commission’s offshore marketing budget to create a slush fund, and ask - (1) Has the minister investigated the allegation? (2) Is there any truth in the claim made by the Opposition? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
The SPEAKER: Member for Kimberley! It is inappropriate to interject from either side of the Chamber. It disrupts the questioner asking the questions. Mrs C.A. MARTIN: I refer to opposition claims that the Government has cut the Western Australian Tourism Commission’s offshore marketing budget to create a slush fund, and ask - (1) Has the minister investigated the allegation? (2) Is there any truth in the claim made by the Opposition? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
Mrs C.A. MARTIN: I refer to opposition claims that the Government has cut the Western Australian Tourism Commission’s offshore marketing budget to create a slush fund, and ask - (1) Has the minister investigated the allegation? (2) Is there any truth in the claim made by the Opposition? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
(1) Has the minister investigated the allegation? (2) Is there any truth in the claim made by the Opposition? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
(2) Is there any truth in the claim made by the Opposition? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
(1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
Dr G.I. Gallop: Have you got an apology yet? Mrs C.A. MARTIN: No, actually; but I am not complaining about that. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mrs C.A. MARTIN: Excuse me, this is my question! The SPEAKER: Member for Kimberley! It is inappropriate to interject from either side of the Chamber. It disrupts the questioner asking the questions. Mrs C.A. MARTIN: I refer to opposition claims that the Government has cut the Western Australian Tourism Commission’s offshore marketing budget to create a slush fund, and ask - (1) Has the minister investigated the allegation? (2) Is there any truth in the claim made by the Opposition? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
Mrs C.A. MARTIN: No, actually; but I am not complaining about that. Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mrs C.A. MARTIN: Excuse me, this is my question! The SPEAKER: Member for Kimberley! It is inappropriate to interject from either side of the Chamber. It disrupts the questioner asking the questions. Mrs C.A. MARTIN: I refer to opposition claims that the Government has cut the Western Australian Tourism Commission’s offshore marketing budget to create a slush fund, and ask - (1) Has the minister investigated the allegation? (2) Is there any truth in the claim made by the Opposition? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
Mr R.F. Johnson interjected. Mrs C.A. MARTIN: Excuse me, this is my question! The SPEAKER: Member for Kimberley! It is inappropriate to interject from either side of the Chamber. It disrupts the questioner asking the questions. Mrs C.A. MARTIN: I refer to opposition claims that the Government has cut the Western Australian Tourism Commission’s offshore marketing budget to create a slush fund, and ask - (1) Has the minister investigated the allegation? (2) Is there any truth in the claim made by the Opposition? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
Mrs C.A. MARTIN: Excuse me, this is my question! The SPEAKER: Member for Kimberley! It is inappropriate to interject from either side of the Chamber. It disrupts the questioner asking the questions. Mrs C.A. MARTIN: I refer to opposition claims that the Government has cut the Western Australian Tourism Commission’s offshore marketing budget to create a slush fund, and ask - (1) Has the minister investigated the allegation? (2) Is there any truth in the claim made by the Opposition? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
The SPEAKER: Member for Kimberley! It is inappropriate to interject from either side of the Chamber. It disrupts the questioner asking the questions. Mrs C.A. MARTIN: I refer to opposition claims that the Government has cut the Western Australian Tourism Commission’s offshore marketing budget to create a slush fund, and ask - (1) Has the minister investigated the allegation? (2) Is there any truth in the claim made by the Opposition? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
Mrs C.A. MARTIN: I refer to opposition claims that the Government has cut the Western Australian Tourism Commission’s offshore marketing budget to create a slush fund, and ask - (1) Has the minister investigated the allegation? (2) Is there any truth in the claim made by the Opposition? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
(1) Has the minister investigated the allegation? (2) Is there any truth in the claim made by the Opposition? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
(2) Is there any truth in the claim made by the Opposition? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
Mr C.M. BROWN replied: (1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
(1)-(2) I did receive with some interest the claim by the Opposition that a slush fund - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
The SPEAKER: Members! I do not know whether the minister was answering the question because I could not hear anything he said. Before members interject with their clever interjections, I ask them to wait and see what the minister has to say. Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
Mr C.M. BROWN: I was intrigued by the Opposition’s claim that a slush fund had been created and funds had been diverted. I indicated to the House that I would investigate that matter in the interests of full and fair reporting to the Parliament, because an allegation had been made and it was important to investigate and see whether there was any substance in it or whether it was just hot air coming from the opposition side based on no substance at all, which is normally the case. These allegations were made by the member for Nedlands on 15 September 2002 in a separate media statement in which it was incorrectly claimed that the Singapore tourism campaign budget had been cut by 25 per cent to create a slush fund for the WATC directors and the State Government. The member for Nedlands has conveniently misinterpreted the information she obtained from the Singapore office. She was referring to the future marketing initiatives fund created by the chairman and the chief executive officer of the WATC. This strategic decision was taken by the chairman, in whom I have every confidence, and the chief executive officer to ensure that the State had a means of responding to new opportunities or threats to the tourism industry. As a result, a total of some $500 000 was designated for the future marketing initiatives fund. That fund was created for the purpose of marketing Western Australia, not by segmenting those funds in any particular market, but so that we could respond to new initiatives and challenges as they came along. This fund will also provide financial resources for the Tourism Commission to enable it to meet its key objectives set by the tourism industry development strategy Partnership 21. Furthermore, this initiative was strongly supported by the industry and was a key recommendation that came out of the most recent review of Partnership 21, involving extensive industry consultation. It is clear that the Opposition has again raised a matter that has no foundation, has no substance, and is clearly wrong - situation normal, as the member for Riverton has said. Again the Opposition is wrong, wrong and continuously wrong.
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.