❓ Opposition questions the Premier about alleged 'staff-for-votes' deals with minor parties and independents, claiming it will cost $1 million. The Premier denies the deals and deflects by questioning the Opposition's past actions regarding staffing for the Greens.
AnsweredQoN 704Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
government RESOURCING — MINOR PARTIES AND INDEPENDENTS
On behalf of the member for Mandurah, I welcome students from the Assumption Catholic Primary School, Mandurah, to the gallery. I refer to the Premier’s personal staff-for-votes deal with the member for Fremantle. (1) Does the Premier acknowledge that his deals with the members for Fremantle, Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie to guarantee greater security for his government in this house will cost $1 million over four years? (2) When will the issue of additional resourcing for the member for Fremantle go to cabinet? (3) Has the Department of the Premier and Cabinet prepared a submission? (4) What are the requirements to be put around these consultants: do they have to work at Parliament House; is it a requirement that they have a legal background, as they assist with the legislative workloads of these members, and are they precluded from undertaking duties associated with the electorate or with campaigns? If there are these requirements, how will compliance with these requirements be monitored? Mr C.J. BARNETT
On behalf of the member for Mandurah, I welcome students from the Assumption Catholic Primary School, Mandurah, to the gallery. I refer to the Premier’s personal staff-for-votes deal with the member for Fremantle. (1) Does the Premier acknowledge that his deals with the members for Fremantle, Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie to guarantee greater security for his government in this house will cost $1 million over four years? (2) When will the issue of additional resourcing for the member for Fremantle go to cabinet? (3) Has the Department of the Premier and Cabinet prepared a submission? (4) What are the requirements to be put around these consultants: do they have to work at Parliament House; is it a requirement that they have a legal background, as they assist with the legislative workloads of these members, and are they precluded from undertaking duties associated with the electorate or with campaigns? If there are these requirements, how will compliance with these requirements be monitored? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(4) There is no staff-for-votes deal. This is the issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised last week. He is raising it again this week in a matter of public interest motion, so we will have that discussion. As to the cost, the Leader of the Opposition can do the math—if he wants to. Mr E.S. Ripper : I have done the math; it comes to $1 million. Do you agree? Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
I refer to the Premier’s personal staff-for-votes deal with the member for Fremantle. (1) Does the Premier acknowledge that his deals with the members for Fremantle, Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie to guarantee greater security for his government in this house will cost $1 million over four years? (2) When will the issue of additional resourcing for the member for Fremantle go to cabinet? (3) Has the Department of the Premier and Cabinet prepared a submission? (4) What are the requirements to be put around these consultants: do they have to work at Parliament House; is it a requirement that they have a legal background, as they assist with the legislative workloads of these members, and are they precluded from undertaking duties associated with the electorate or with campaigns? If there are these requirements, how will compliance with these requirements be monitored? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There is no staff-for-votes deal. This is the issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised last week. He is raising it again this week in a matter of public interest motion, so we will have that discussion. As to the cost, the Leader of the Opposition can do the math—if he wants to. Mr E.S. Ripper : I have done the math; it comes to $1 million. Do you agree? Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
(1) Does the Premier acknowledge that his deals with the members for Fremantle, Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie to guarantee greater security for his government in this house will cost $1 million over four years? (2) When will the issue of additional resourcing for the member for Fremantle go to cabinet? (3) Has the Department of the Premier and Cabinet prepared a submission? (4) What are the requirements to be put around these consultants: do they have to work at Parliament House; is it a requirement that they have a legal background, as they assist with the legislative workloads of these members, and are they precluded from undertaking duties associated with the electorate or with campaigns? If there are these requirements, how will compliance with these requirements be monitored? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There is no staff-for-votes deal. This is the issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised last week. He is raising it again this week in a matter of public interest motion, so we will have that discussion. As to the cost, the Leader of the Opposition can do the math—if he wants to. Mr E.S. Ripper : I have done the math; it comes to $1 million. Do you agree? Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
(2) When will the issue of additional resourcing for the member for Fremantle go to cabinet? (3) Has the Department of the Premier and Cabinet prepared a submission? (4) What are the requirements to be put around these consultants: do they have to work at Parliament House; is it a requirement that they have a legal background, as they assist with the legislative workloads of these members, and are they precluded from undertaking duties associated with the electorate or with campaigns? If there are these requirements, how will compliance with these requirements be monitored? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There is no staff-for-votes deal. This is the issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised last week. He is raising it again this week in a matter of public interest motion, so we will have that discussion. As to the cost, the Leader of the Opposition can do the math—if he wants to. Mr E.S. Ripper : I have done the math; it comes to $1 million. Do you agree? Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
(3) Has the Department of the Premier and Cabinet prepared a submission? (4) What are the requirements to be put around these consultants: do they have to work at Parliament House; is it a requirement that they have a legal background, as they assist with the legislative workloads of these members, and are they precluded from undertaking duties associated with the electorate or with campaigns? If there are these requirements, how will compliance with these requirements be monitored? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There is no staff-for-votes deal. This is the issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised last week. He is raising it again this week in a matter of public interest motion, so we will have that discussion. As to the cost, the Leader of the Opposition can do the math—if he wants to. Mr E.S. Ripper : I have done the math; it comes to $1 million. Do you agree? Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
(4) What are the requirements to be put around these consultants: do they have to work at Parliament House; is it a requirement that they have a legal background, as they assist with the legislative workloads of these members, and are they precluded from undertaking duties associated with the electorate or with campaigns? If there are these requirements, how will compliance with these requirements be monitored? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There is no staff-for-votes deal. This is the issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised last week. He is raising it again this week in a matter of public interest motion, so we will have that discussion. As to the cost, the Leader of the Opposition can do the math—if he wants to. Mr E.S. Ripper : I have done the math; it comes to $1 million. Do you agree? Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There is no staff-for-votes deal. This is the issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised last week. He is raising it again this week in a matter of public interest motion, so we will have that discussion. As to the cost, the Leader of the Opposition can do the math—if he wants to. Mr E.S. Ripper : I have done the math; it comes to $1 million. Do you agree? Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
(1)–(4) There is no staff-for-votes deal. This is the issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised last week. He is raising it again this week in a matter of public interest motion, so we will have that discussion. As to the cost, the Leader of the Opposition can do the math—if he wants to. Mr E.S. Ripper : I have done the math; it comes to $1 million. Do you agree? Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : I have done the math; it comes to $1 million. Do you agree? Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
I refer to the Premier’s personal staff-for-votes deal with the member for Fremantle. (1) Does the Premier acknowledge that his deals with the members for Fremantle, Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie to guarantee greater security for his government in this house will cost $1 million over four years? (2) When will the issue of additional resourcing for the member for Fremantle go to cabinet? (3) Has the Department of the Premier and Cabinet prepared a submission? (4) What are the requirements to be put around these consultants: do they have to work at Parliament House; is it a requirement that they have a legal background, as they assist with the legislative workloads of these members, and are they precluded from undertaking duties associated with the electorate or with campaigns? If there are these requirements, how will compliance with these requirements be monitored? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There is no staff-for-votes deal. This is the issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised last week. He is raising it again this week in a matter of public interest motion, so we will have that discussion. As to the cost, the Leader of the Opposition can do the math—if he wants to. Mr E.S. Ripper : I have done the math; it comes to $1 million. Do you agree? Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
(1) Does the Premier acknowledge that his deals with the members for Fremantle, Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie to guarantee greater security for his government in this house will cost $1 million over four years? (2) When will the issue of additional resourcing for the member for Fremantle go to cabinet? (3) Has the Department of the Premier and Cabinet prepared a submission? (4) What are the requirements to be put around these consultants: do they have to work at Parliament House; is it a requirement that they have a legal background, as they assist with the legislative workloads of these members, and are they precluded from undertaking duties associated with the electorate or with campaigns? If there are these requirements, how will compliance with these requirements be monitored? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There is no staff-for-votes deal. This is the issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised last week. He is raising it again this week in a matter of public interest motion, so we will have that discussion. As to the cost, the Leader of the Opposition can do the math—if he wants to. Mr E.S. Ripper : I have done the math; it comes to $1 million. Do you agree? Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
(2) When will the issue of additional resourcing for the member for Fremantle go to cabinet? (3) Has the Department of the Premier and Cabinet prepared a submission? (4) What are the requirements to be put around these consultants: do they have to work at Parliament House; is it a requirement that they have a legal background, as they assist with the legislative workloads of these members, and are they precluded from undertaking duties associated with the electorate or with campaigns? If there are these requirements, how will compliance with these requirements be monitored? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There is no staff-for-votes deal. This is the issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised last week. He is raising it again this week in a matter of public interest motion, so we will have that discussion. As to the cost, the Leader of the Opposition can do the math—if he wants to. Mr E.S. Ripper : I have done the math; it comes to $1 million. Do you agree? Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
(3) Has the Department of the Premier and Cabinet prepared a submission? (4) What are the requirements to be put around these consultants: do they have to work at Parliament House; is it a requirement that they have a legal background, as they assist with the legislative workloads of these members, and are they precluded from undertaking duties associated with the electorate or with campaigns? If there are these requirements, how will compliance with these requirements be monitored? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There is no staff-for-votes deal. This is the issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised last week. He is raising it again this week in a matter of public interest motion, so we will have that discussion. As to the cost, the Leader of the Opposition can do the math—if he wants to. Mr E.S. Ripper : I have done the math; it comes to $1 million. Do you agree? Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
(4) What are the requirements to be put around these consultants: do they have to work at Parliament House; is it a requirement that they have a legal background, as they assist with the legislative workloads of these members, and are they precluded from undertaking duties associated with the electorate or with campaigns? If there are these requirements, how will compliance with these requirements be monitored? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There is no staff-for-votes deal. This is the issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised last week. He is raising it again this week in a matter of public interest motion, so we will have that discussion. As to the cost, the Leader of the Opposition can do the math—if he wants to. Mr E.S. Ripper : I have done the math; it comes to $1 million. Do you agree? Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(4) There is no staff-for-votes deal. This is the issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised last week. He is raising it again this week in a matter of public interest motion, so we will have that discussion. As to the cost, the Leader of the Opposition can do the math—if he wants to. Mr E.S. Ripper : I have done the math; it comes to $1 million. Do you agree? Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
(1)–(4) There is no staff-for-votes deal. This is the issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised last week. He is raising it again this week in a matter of public interest motion, so we will have that discussion. As to the cost, the Leader of the Opposition can do the math—if he wants to. Mr E.S. Ripper : I have done the math; it comes to $1 million. Do you agree? Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : I have done the math; it comes to $1 million. Do you agree? Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : There are no conditions attached. As I said last week, the additional staff members provided for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were provided by way of a formal cabinet decision, and that cabinet decision has no — Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : In that formal cabinet decision, were there any compliance requirements put on it? Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : That cabinet decision has no conditions attached to it at all. But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
But this question gives me the opportunity, now that a week has gone by, to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he — Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—that’s your strategy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No! Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : Delay, deny, counterattack—you are a bit slow on the counterattack, but you have been doing plenty of delay and denial. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is not a counterattack, Mr Speaker; it is a simple question because — Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr M. McGowan : Go and have your coffee! The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
The SPEAKER : I believe the Leader of the Opposition has asked the question in all seriousness, and would expect a serious answer from the Premier. An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
An interjection such as yours, member for Rockingham, does not aid the process. I call you formally to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The additional staff for the members for Alfred Cove and Kalgoorlie were by way of a formal cabinet decision, which does not have any conditions whatsoever attached to it. Should additional staff be provided for the member for Fremantle, no condition will be attached to it and it would be a formal cabinet decision, but that matter has not progressed beyond the conversation I had with the member for Fremantle back in mid-October. Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Now that a week has gone by, it does give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to clarify for the house, when staff were provided for the Greens (WA) under the Gallop government, to assist, I presume, the passage of the one vote, one value — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Can the Leader of the Opposition now confirm — Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : On what evidence do you assume that? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I just make that assumption. Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : As you do! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at the same time. Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : With no evidence! Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : They happened at exactly the same time, and I can remember—maybe Hon Giz Watson can explain how that occurred—the impasse over one vote, one value in the upper house, and the Greens were provided, perhaps coincidentally, with additional staff and then, perhaps coincidentally, they supported one vote, one value. Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : It was longstanding Greens policy! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Interesting, but can the Leader of the Opposition confirm something for me? This government, in any provision of additional staffing, only does so by a formal decision of cabinet. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me whether, when that staffing was provided to the Greens, it was a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : And what’s the importance of that question? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : If you do it by a formal decision of cabinet, the documents are not available by FOI, are they? Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a formal decision of cabinet? Come on! Come on! Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : If it is done by a formal decision of cabinet, no subsequent government has access to those documents. So you do it by cabinet to avoid revealing what you have done. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am asking the question! I do not have access to those documents and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition the question. Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : There was never any condition that the staffer that was allocated here at Parliament House, not in the electorate office — Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Was it a decision of cabinet? Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : What is the point of it being a decision of cabinet? Only so that the Premier can hide it! Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : So, no decision of cabinet? The Leader of the Opposition did allocate a staff member to the Greens at the time of the one vote, one value debate — Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr E.S. Ripper : To a whole party! Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : — to the Greens. Now, if I hear the Leader of the Opposition correctly, he is saying there was no formal cabinet decision. The Leader of the Opposition just did it as the Labor Party, did he? Am I to understand there was no cabinet decision? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition is saying? The Leader of the Opposition just did it: “Here you are! Have a staff member.” Is that was the Leader of the Opposition did? I think that is what they did: “Have a staff member!” They hand them out like confetti! What a joke!
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.