❓ Mr. Johnson questions the Minister's decision to axe Rally Australia, alleging misleading economic benefit figures. The Minister defends the decision, citing a change in calculation methodology and better returns from other events.
AnsweredQoN 68Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I know the minister is here because the lights are on and I can see him quite clearly! I refer to the minister’s ill-advised decision to axe Rally Australia and to his explanation that economic benefit to the state had halved from $20 million per annum in 2002 to $9.3 million in 2004. (1) Why did the minister not honestly explain that the government is now using a different methodology to calculate these figures and that, in real terms, the economic benefit to the state has not decreased? (2) Why did he deliberately mislead the public by not admitting that the calculation method had changed? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The imputation in the member’s question that the minister has deliberately misled is simply not allowed under standing orders. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am suggesting that the minister might have deliberately misled the public, not this house. There is a very big difference. I know that under standing orders we cannot accuse someone of deliberately misleading this house. The SPEAKER : This does not involve a new ruling. Members cannot accuse a member in this house of deliberately misleading anyone. The question contains an imputation and the member for Hillarys should withdraw it from his question. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I withdraw the word “deliberately”. I assume that I can leave in the words “mislead the public”. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) The question asked by the member for Hillarys shows that he did not listen to any of the points I put forward on this matter. I explained to him in this house, in public, what occurred. In the days of the Court government, when EventsCorp’s budget was about half what it is now, a misleading mechanism was used to work out the value generated by a particular event, whether it be sporting or cultural. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN : The member should listen to the answer. The methodology was very misleading, so the figures produced by Hon Norman Moore as Minister for Tourism were wildly inaccurate. They were commonly provided around Australia by various governments to blow out the estimated value of particular events. Therefore, under the former Liberal government, the public was misled on these matters. It arrived at $20 million and $30 million figures of economic benefit for one of these events, because it used a multiplying formula. In 2002, Treasury in the Australian Capital Territory examined the formula being used by most of the states and decided that it was widely inaccurate and that it sent dishonest information to the public. Virtually every state government has now changed the formula by which it estimates the dollar benefit of a tourism event. The $20 million formula used by the Liberal government in the late 1990s was misleading. This government is being honest. The formula the government is now using reveals that for every dollar spent on Telstra Rally Australia, the direct tourism benefit in Western Australia is $1.60. Using the exact same formula, we can compare Rally Australia with the Hyundai Hopman Cup. For every dollar spent in relation to the Hopman Cup, Western Australia receives $8.50 worth of economic benefit. For every dollar spent at the Australian University Games, Western Australia receives $27 worth of direct economic benefit. For every dollar that the state puts into the Masters Australian Football, it receives $84 of direct spend tourism benefit in Western Australia. It is not that I do not like Rally Australia; I have attended that event many times. However, I had to make a decision based on the interests of the tourism industry and Western Australian taxpayers. That is the right thing to do. I am prepared to make hard decisions. The member for Hillarys is not. The only time the member for Hillarys has said anything remotely accurate in recent weeks was when he said that the member for Kalgoorlie was too inexperienced to be the Leader of the Opposition. Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
(1) Why did the minister not honestly explain that the government is now using a different methodology to calculate these figures and that, in real terms, the economic benefit to the state has not decreased? (2) Why did he deliberately mislead the public by not admitting that the calculation method had changed? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The imputation in the member’s question that the minister has deliberately misled is simply not allowed under standing orders. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am suggesting that the minister might have deliberately misled the public, not this house. There is a very big difference. I know that under standing orders we cannot accuse someone of deliberately misleading this house. The SPEAKER : This does not involve a new ruling. Members cannot accuse a member in this house of deliberately misleading anyone. The question contains an imputation and the member for Hillarys should withdraw it from his question. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I withdraw the word “deliberately”. I assume that I can leave in the words “mislead the public”. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: (1)-(2) The question asked by the member for Hillarys shows that he did not listen to any of the points I put forward on this matter. I explained to him in this house, in public, what occurred. In the days of the Court government, when EventsCorp’s budget was about half what it is now, a misleading mechanism was used to work out the value generated by a particular event, whether it be sporting or cultural. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN : The member should listen to the answer. The methodology was very misleading, so the figures produced by Hon Norman Moore as Minister for Tourism were wildly inaccurate. They were commonly provided around Australia by various governments to blow out the estimated value of particular events. Therefore, under the former Liberal government, the public was misled on these matters. It arrived at $20 million and $30 million figures of economic benefit for one of these events, because it used a multiplying formula. In 2002, Treasury in the Australian Capital Territory examined the formula being used by most of the states and decided that it was widely inaccurate and that it sent dishonest information to the public. Virtually every state government has now changed the formula by which it estimates the dollar benefit of a tourism event. The $20 million formula used by the Liberal government in the late 1990s was misleading. This government is being honest. The formula the government is now using reveals that for every dollar spent on Telstra Rally Australia, the direct tourism benefit in Western Australia is $1.60. Using the exact same formula, we can compare Rally Australia with the Hyundai Hopman Cup. For every dollar spent in relation to the Hopman Cup, Western Australia receives $8.50 worth of economic benefit. For every dollar spent at the Australian University Games, Western Australia receives $27 worth of direct economic benefit. For every dollar that the state puts into the Masters Australian Football, it receives $84 of direct spend tourism benefit in Western Australia. It is not that I do not like Rally Australia; I have attended that event many times. However, I had to make a decision based on the interests of the tourism industry and Western Australian taxpayers. That is the right thing to do. I am prepared to make hard decisions. The member for Hillarys is not. The only time the member for Hillarys has said anything remotely accurate in recent weeks was when he said that the member for Kalgoorlie was too inexperienced to be the Leader of the Opposition. Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
(2) Why did he deliberately mislead the public by not admitting that the calculation method had changed? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The imputation in the member’s question that the minister has deliberately misled is simply not allowed under standing orders. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am suggesting that the minister might have deliberately misled the public, not this house. There is a very big difference. I know that under standing orders we cannot accuse someone of deliberately misleading this house. The SPEAKER : This does not involve a new ruling. Members cannot accuse a member in this house of deliberately misleading anyone. The question contains an imputation and the member for Hillarys should withdraw it from his question. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I withdraw the word “deliberately”. I assume that I can leave in the words “mislead the public”. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: (1)-(2) The question asked by the member for Hillarys shows that he did not listen to any of the points I put forward on this matter. I explained to him in this house, in public, what occurred. In the days of the Court government, when EventsCorp’s budget was about half what it is now, a misleading mechanism was used to work out the value generated by a particular event, whether it be sporting or cultural. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN : The member should listen to the answer. The methodology was very misleading, so the figures produced by Hon Norman Moore as Minister for Tourism were wildly inaccurate. They were commonly provided around Australia by various governments to blow out the estimated value of particular events. Therefore, under the former Liberal government, the public was misled on these matters. It arrived at $20 million and $30 million figures of economic benefit for one of these events, because it used a multiplying formula. In 2002, Treasury in the Australian Capital Territory examined the formula being used by most of the states and decided that it was widely inaccurate and that it sent dishonest information to the public. Virtually every state government has now changed the formula by which it estimates the dollar benefit of a tourism event. The $20 million formula used by the Liberal government in the late 1990s was misleading. This government is being honest. The formula the government is now using reveals that for every dollar spent on Telstra Rally Australia, the direct tourism benefit in Western Australia is $1.60. Using the exact same formula, we can compare Rally Australia with the Hyundai Hopman Cup. For every dollar spent in relation to the Hopman Cup, Western Australia receives $8.50 worth of economic benefit. For every dollar spent at the Australian University Games, Western Australia receives $27 worth of direct economic benefit. For every dollar that the state puts into the Masters Australian Football, it receives $84 of direct spend tourism benefit in Western Australia. It is not that I do not like Rally Australia; I have attended that event many times. However, I had to make a decision based on the interests of the tourism industry and Western Australian taxpayers. That is the right thing to do. I am prepared to make hard decisions. The member for Hillarys is not. The only time the member for Hillarys has said anything remotely accurate in recent weeks was when he said that the member for Kalgoorlie was too inexperienced to be the Leader of the Opposition. Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am suggesting that the minister might have deliberately misled the public, not this house. There is a very big difference. I know that under standing orders we cannot accuse someone of deliberately misleading this house. The SPEAKER : This does not involve a new ruling. Members cannot accuse a member in this house of deliberately misleading anyone. The question contains an imputation and the member for Hillarys should withdraw it from his question. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I withdraw the word “deliberately”. I assume that I can leave in the words “mislead the public”. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: (1)-(2) The question asked by the member for Hillarys shows that he did not listen to any of the points I put forward on this matter. I explained to him in this house, in public, what occurred. In the days of the Court government, when EventsCorp’s budget was about half what it is now, a misleading mechanism was used to work out the value generated by a particular event, whether it be sporting or cultural. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN : The member should listen to the answer. The methodology was very misleading, so the figures produced by Hon Norman Moore as Minister for Tourism were wildly inaccurate. They were commonly provided around Australia by various governments to blow out the estimated value of particular events. Therefore, under the former Liberal government, the public was misled on these matters. It arrived at $20 million and $30 million figures of economic benefit for one of these events, because it used a multiplying formula. In 2002, Treasury in the Australian Capital Territory examined the formula being used by most of the states and decided that it was widely inaccurate and that it sent dishonest information to the public. Virtually every state government has now changed the formula by which it estimates the dollar benefit of a tourism event. The $20 million formula used by the Liberal government in the late 1990s was misleading. This government is being honest. The formula the government is now using reveals that for every dollar spent on Telstra Rally Australia, the direct tourism benefit in Western Australia is $1.60. Using the exact same formula, we can compare Rally Australia with the Hyundai Hopman Cup. For every dollar spent in relation to the Hopman Cup, Western Australia receives $8.50 worth of economic benefit. For every dollar spent at the Australian University Games, Western Australia receives $27 worth of direct economic benefit. For every dollar that the state puts into the Masters Australian Football, it receives $84 of direct spend tourism benefit in Western Australia. It is not that I do not like Rally Australia; I have attended that event many times. However, I had to make a decision based on the interests of the tourism industry and Western Australian taxpayers. That is the right thing to do. I am prepared to make hard decisions. The member for Hillarys is not. The only time the member for Hillarys has said anything remotely accurate in recent weeks was when he said that the member for Kalgoorlie was too inexperienced to be the Leader of the Opposition. Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
The SPEAKER : This does not involve a new ruling. Members cannot accuse a member in this house of deliberately misleading anyone. The question contains an imputation and the member for Hillarys should withdraw it from his question. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I withdraw the word “deliberately”. I assume that I can leave in the words “mislead the public”. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: (1)-(2) The question asked by the member for Hillarys shows that he did not listen to any of the points I put forward on this matter. I explained to him in this house, in public, what occurred. In the days of the Court government, when EventsCorp’s budget was about half what it is now, a misleading mechanism was used to work out the value generated by a particular event, whether it be sporting or cultural. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN : The member should listen to the answer. The methodology was very misleading, so the figures produced by Hon Norman Moore as Minister for Tourism were wildly inaccurate. They were commonly provided around Australia by various governments to blow out the estimated value of particular events. Therefore, under the former Liberal government, the public was misled on these matters. It arrived at $20 million and $30 million figures of economic benefit for one of these events, because it used a multiplying formula. In 2002, Treasury in the Australian Capital Territory examined the formula being used by most of the states and decided that it was widely inaccurate and that it sent dishonest information to the public. Virtually every state government has now changed the formula by which it estimates the dollar benefit of a tourism event. The $20 million formula used by the Liberal government in the late 1990s was misleading. This government is being honest. The formula the government is now using reveals that for every dollar spent on Telstra Rally Australia, the direct tourism benefit in Western Australia is $1.60. Using the exact same formula, we can compare Rally Australia with the Hyundai Hopman Cup. For every dollar spent in relation to the Hopman Cup, Western Australia receives $8.50 worth of economic benefit. For every dollar spent at the Australian University Games, Western Australia receives $27 worth of direct economic benefit. For every dollar that the state puts into the Masters Australian Football, it receives $84 of direct spend tourism benefit in Western Australia. It is not that I do not like Rally Australia; I have attended that event many times. However, I had to make a decision based on the interests of the tourism industry and Western Australian taxpayers. That is the right thing to do. I am prepared to make hard decisions. The member for Hillarys is not. The only time the member for Hillarys has said anything remotely accurate in recent weeks was when he said that the member for Kalgoorlie was too inexperienced to be the Leader of the Opposition. Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I withdraw the word “deliberately”. I assume that I can leave in the words “mislead the public”. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: (1)-(2) The question asked by the member for Hillarys shows that he did not listen to any of the points I put forward on this matter. I explained to him in this house, in public, what occurred. In the days of the Court government, when EventsCorp’s budget was about half what it is now, a misleading mechanism was used to work out the value generated by a particular event, whether it be sporting or cultural. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN : The member should listen to the answer. The methodology was very misleading, so the figures produced by Hon Norman Moore as Minister for Tourism were wildly inaccurate. They were commonly provided around Australia by various governments to blow out the estimated value of particular events. Therefore, under the former Liberal government, the public was misled on these matters. It arrived at $20 million and $30 million figures of economic benefit for one of these events, because it used a multiplying formula. In 2002, Treasury in the Australian Capital Territory examined the formula being used by most of the states and decided that it was widely inaccurate and that it sent dishonest information to the public. Virtually every state government has now changed the formula by which it estimates the dollar benefit of a tourism event. The $20 million formula used by the Liberal government in the late 1990s was misleading. This government is being honest. The formula the government is now using reveals that for every dollar spent on Telstra Rally Australia, the direct tourism benefit in Western Australia is $1.60. Using the exact same formula, we can compare Rally Australia with the Hyundai Hopman Cup. For every dollar spent in relation to the Hopman Cup, Western Australia receives $8.50 worth of economic benefit. For every dollar spent at the Australian University Games, Western Australia receives $27 worth of direct economic benefit. For every dollar that the state puts into the Masters Australian Football, it receives $84 of direct spend tourism benefit in Western Australia. It is not that I do not like Rally Australia; I have attended that event many times. However, I had to make a decision based on the interests of the tourism industry and Western Australian taxpayers. That is the right thing to do. I am prepared to make hard decisions. The member for Hillarys is not. The only time the member for Hillarys has said anything remotely accurate in recent weeks was when he said that the member for Kalgoorlie was too inexperienced to be the Leader of the Opposition. Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
(1)-(2) The question asked by the member for Hillarys shows that he did not listen to any of the points I put forward on this matter. I explained to him in this house, in public, what occurred. In the days of the Court government, when EventsCorp’s budget was about half what it is now, a misleading mechanism was used to work out the value generated by a particular event, whether it be sporting or cultural. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN : The member should listen to the answer. The methodology was very misleading, so the figures produced by Hon Norman Moore as Minister for Tourism were wildly inaccurate. They were commonly provided around Australia by various governments to blow out the estimated value of particular events. Therefore, under the former Liberal government, the public was misled on these matters. It arrived at $20 million and $30 million figures of economic benefit for one of these events, because it used a multiplying formula. In 2002, Treasury in the Australian Capital Territory examined the formula being used by most of the states and decided that it was widely inaccurate and that it sent dishonest information to the public. Virtually every state government has now changed the formula by which it estimates the dollar benefit of a tourism event. The $20 million formula used by the Liberal government in the late 1990s was misleading. This government is being honest. The formula the government is now using reveals that for every dollar spent on Telstra Rally Australia, the direct tourism benefit in Western Australia is $1.60. Using the exact same formula, we can compare Rally Australia with the Hyundai Hopman Cup. For every dollar spent in relation to the Hopman Cup, Western Australia receives $8.50 worth of economic benefit. For every dollar spent at the Australian University Games, Western Australia receives $27 worth of direct economic benefit. For every dollar that the state puts into the Masters Australian Football, it receives $84 of direct spend tourism benefit in Western Australia. It is not that I do not like Rally Australia; I have attended that event many times. However, I had to make a decision based on the interests of the tourism industry and Western Australian taxpayers. That is the right thing to do. I am prepared to make hard decisions. The member for Hillarys is not. The only time the member for Hillarys has said anything remotely accurate in recent weeks was when he said that the member for Kalgoorlie was too inexperienced to be the Leader of the Opposition. Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN : The member should listen to the answer. The methodology was very misleading, so the figures produced by Hon Norman Moore as Minister for Tourism were wildly inaccurate. They were commonly provided around Australia by various governments to blow out the estimated value of particular events. Therefore, under the former Liberal government, the public was misled on these matters. It arrived at $20 million and $30 million figures of economic benefit for one of these events, because it used a multiplying formula. In 2002, Treasury in the Australian Capital Territory examined the formula being used by most of the states and decided that it was widely inaccurate and that it sent dishonest information to the public. Virtually every state government has now changed the formula by which it estimates the dollar benefit of a tourism event. The $20 million formula used by the Liberal government in the late 1990s was misleading. This government is being honest. The formula the government is now using reveals that for every dollar spent on Telstra Rally Australia, the direct tourism benefit in Western Australia is $1.60. Using the exact same formula, we can compare Rally Australia with the Hyundai Hopman Cup. For every dollar spent in relation to the Hopman Cup, Western Australia receives $8.50 worth of economic benefit. For every dollar spent at the Australian University Games, Western Australia receives $27 worth of direct economic benefit. For every dollar that the state puts into the Masters Australian Football, it receives $84 of direct spend tourism benefit in Western Australia. It is not that I do not like Rally Australia; I have attended that event many times. However, I had to make a decision based on the interests of the tourism industry and Western Australian taxpayers. That is the right thing to do. I am prepared to make hard decisions. The member for Hillarys is not. The only time the member for Hillarys has said anything remotely accurate in recent weeks was when he said that the member for Kalgoorlie was too inexperienced to be the Leader of the Opposition. Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
Mr M. McGOWAN : The member should listen to the answer. The methodology was very misleading, so the figures produced by Hon Norman Moore as Minister for Tourism were wildly inaccurate. They were commonly provided around Australia by various governments to blow out the estimated value of particular events. Therefore, under the former Liberal government, the public was misled on these matters. It arrived at $20 million and $30 million figures of economic benefit for one of these events, because it used a multiplying formula. In 2002, Treasury in the Australian Capital Territory examined the formula being used by most of the states and decided that it was widely inaccurate and that it sent dishonest information to the public. Virtually every state government has now changed the formula by which it estimates the dollar benefit of a tourism event. The $20 million formula used by the Liberal government in the late 1990s was misleading. This government is being honest. The formula the government is now using reveals that for every dollar spent on Telstra Rally Australia, the direct tourism benefit in Western Australia is $1.60. Using the exact same formula, we can compare Rally Australia with the Hyundai Hopman Cup. For every dollar spent in relation to the Hopman Cup, Western Australia receives $8.50 worth of economic benefit. For every dollar spent at the Australian University Games, Western Australia receives $27 worth of direct economic benefit. For every dollar that the state puts into the Masters Australian Football, it receives $84 of direct spend tourism benefit in Western Australia. It is not that I do not like Rally Australia; I have attended that event many times. However, I had to make a decision based on the interests of the tourism industry and Western Australian taxpayers. That is the right thing to do. I am prepared to make hard decisions. The member for Hillarys is not. The only time the member for Hillarys has said anything remotely accurate in recent weeks was when he said that the member for Kalgoorlie was too inexperienced to be the Leader of the Opposition. Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
(1) Why did the minister not honestly explain that the government is now using a different methodology to calculate these figures and that, in real terms, the economic benefit to the state has not decreased? (2) Why did he deliberately mislead the public by not admitting that the calculation method had changed? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The imputation in the member’s question that the minister has deliberately misled is simply not allowed under standing orders. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am suggesting that the minister might have deliberately misled the public, not this house. There is a very big difference. I know that under standing orders we cannot accuse someone of deliberately misleading this house. The SPEAKER : This does not involve a new ruling. Members cannot accuse a member in this house of deliberately misleading anyone. The question contains an imputation and the member for Hillarys should withdraw it from his question. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I withdraw the word “deliberately”. I assume that I can leave in the words “mislead the public”. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: (1)-(2) The question asked by the member for Hillarys shows that he did not listen to any of the points I put forward on this matter. I explained to him in this house, in public, what occurred. In the days of the Court government, when EventsCorp’s budget was about half what it is now, a misleading mechanism was used to work out the value generated by a particular event, whether it be sporting or cultural. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN : The member should listen to the answer. The methodology was very misleading, so the figures produced by Hon Norman Moore as Minister for Tourism were wildly inaccurate. They were commonly provided around Australia by various governments to blow out the estimated value of particular events. Therefore, under the former Liberal government, the public was misled on these matters. It arrived at $20 million and $30 million figures of economic benefit for one of these events, because it used a multiplying formula. In 2002, Treasury in the Australian Capital Territory examined the formula being used by most of the states and decided that it was widely inaccurate and that it sent dishonest information to the public. Virtually every state government has now changed the formula by which it estimates the dollar benefit of a tourism event. The $20 million formula used by the Liberal government in the late 1990s was misleading. This government is being honest. The formula the government is now using reveals that for every dollar spent on Telstra Rally Australia, the direct tourism benefit in Western Australia is $1.60. Using the exact same formula, we can compare Rally Australia with the Hyundai Hopman Cup. For every dollar spent in relation to the Hopman Cup, Western Australia receives $8.50 worth of economic benefit. For every dollar spent at the Australian University Games, Western Australia receives $27 worth of direct economic benefit. For every dollar that the state puts into the Masters Australian Football, it receives $84 of direct spend tourism benefit in Western Australia. It is not that I do not like Rally Australia; I have attended that event many times. However, I had to make a decision based on the interests of the tourism industry and Western Australian taxpayers. That is the right thing to do. I am prepared to make hard decisions. The member for Hillarys is not. The only time the member for Hillarys has said anything remotely accurate in recent weeks was when he said that the member for Kalgoorlie was too inexperienced to be the Leader of the Opposition. Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
(2) Why did he deliberately mislead the public by not admitting that the calculation method had changed? Point of Order Mr J.C. KOBELKE : The imputation in the member’s question that the minister has deliberately misled is simply not allowed under standing orders. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am suggesting that the minister might have deliberately misled the public, not this house. There is a very big difference. I know that under standing orders we cannot accuse someone of deliberately misleading this house. The SPEAKER : This does not involve a new ruling. Members cannot accuse a member in this house of deliberately misleading anyone. The question contains an imputation and the member for Hillarys should withdraw it from his question. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I withdraw the word “deliberately”. I assume that I can leave in the words “mislead the public”. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: (1)-(2) The question asked by the member for Hillarys shows that he did not listen to any of the points I put forward on this matter. I explained to him in this house, in public, what occurred. In the days of the Court government, when EventsCorp’s budget was about half what it is now, a misleading mechanism was used to work out the value generated by a particular event, whether it be sporting or cultural. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN : The member should listen to the answer. The methodology was very misleading, so the figures produced by Hon Norman Moore as Minister for Tourism were wildly inaccurate. They were commonly provided around Australia by various governments to blow out the estimated value of particular events. Therefore, under the former Liberal government, the public was misled on these matters. It arrived at $20 million and $30 million figures of economic benefit for one of these events, because it used a multiplying formula. In 2002, Treasury in the Australian Capital Territory examined the formula being used by most of the states and decided that it was widely inaccurate and that it sent dishonest information to the public. Virtually every state government has now changed the formula by which it estimates the dollar benefit of a tourism event. The $20 million formula used by the Liberal government in the late 1990s was misleading. This government is being honest. The formula the government is now using reveals that for every dollar spent on Telstra Rally Australia, the direct tourism benefit in Western Australia is $1.60. Using the exact same formula, we can compare Rally Australia with the Hyundai Hopman Cup. For every dollar spent in relation to the Hopman Cup, Western Australia receives $8.50 worth of economic benefit. For every dollar spent at the Australian University Games, Western Australia receives $27 worth of direct economic benefit. For every dollar that the state puts into the Masters Australian Football, it receives $84 of direct spend tourism benefit in Western Australia. It is not that I do not like Rally Australia; I have attended that event many times. However, I had to make a decision based on the interests of the tourism industry and Western Australian taxpayers. That is the right thing to do. I am prepared to make hard decisions. The member for Hillarys is not. The only time the member for Hillarys has said anything remotely accurate in recent weeks was when he said that the member for Kalgoorlie was too inexperienced to be the Leader of the Opposition. Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I am suggesting that the minister might have deliberately misled the public, not this house. There is a very big difference. I know that under standing orders we cannot accuse someone of deliberately misleading this house. The SPEAKER : This does not involve a new ruling. Members cannot accuse a member in this house of deliberately misleading anyone. The question contains an imputation and the member for Hillarys should withdraw it from his question. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I withdraw the word “deliberately”. I assume that I can leave in the words “mislead the public”. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: (1)-(2) The question asked by the member for Hillarys shows that he did not listen to any of the points I put forward on this matter. I explained to him in this house, in public, what occurred. In the days of the Court government, when EventsCorp’s budget was about half what it is now, a misleading mechanism was used to work out the value generated by a particular event, whether it be sporting or cultural. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN : The member should listen to the answer. The methodology was very misleading, so the figures produced by Hon Norman Moore as Minister for Tourism were wildly inaccurate. They were commonly provided around Australia by various governments to blow out the estimated value of particular events. Therefore, under the former Liberal government, the public was misled on these matters. It arrived at $20 million and $30 million figures of economic benefit for one of these events, because it used a multiplying formula. In 2002, Treasury in the Australian Capital Territory examined the formula being used by most of the states and decided that it was widely inaccurate and that it sent dishonest information to the public. Virtually every state government has now changed the formula by which it estimates the dollar benefit of a tourism event. The $20 million formula used by the Liberal government in the late 1990s was misleading. This government is being honest. The formula the government is now using reveals that for every dollar spent on Telstra Rally Australia, the direct tourism benefit in Western Australia is $1.60. Using the exact same formula, we can compare Rally Australia with the Hyundai Hopman Cup. For every dollar spent in relation to the Hopman Cup, Western Australia receives $8.50 worth of economic benefit. For every dollar spent at the Australian University Games, Western Australia receives $27 worth of direct economic benefit. For every dollar that the state puts into the Masters Australian Football, it receives $84 of direct spend tourism benefit in Western Australia. It is not that I do not like Rally Australia; I have attended that event many times. However, I had to make a decision based on the interests of the tourism industry and Western Australian taxpayers. That is the right thing to do. I am prepared to make hard decisions. The member for Hillarys is not. The only time the member for Hillarys has said anything remotely accurate in recent weeks was when he said that the member for Kalgoorlie was too inexperienced to be the Leader of the Opposition. Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
The SPEAKER : This does not involve a new ruling. Members cannot accuse a member in this house of deliberately misleading anyone. The question contains an imputation and the member for Hillarys should withdraw it from his question. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I withdraw the word “deliberately”. I assume that I can leave in the words “mislead the public”. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: (1)-(2) The question asked by the member for Hillarys shows that he did not listen to any of the points I put forward on this matter. I explained to him in this house, in public, what occurred. In the days of the Court government, when EventsCorp’s budget was about half what it is now, a misleading mechanism was used to work out the value generated by a particular event, whether it be sporting or cultural. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN : The member should listen to the answer. The methodology was very misleading, so the figures produced by Hon Norman Moore as Minister for Tourism were wildly inaccurate. They were commonly provided around Australia by various governments to blow out the estimated value of particular events. Therefore, under the former Liberal government, the public was misled on these matters. It arrived at $20 million and $30 million figures of economic benefit for one of these events, because it used a multiplying formula. In 2002, Treasury in the Australian Capital Territory examined the formula being used by most of the states and decided that it was widely inaccurate and that it sent dishonest information to the public. Virtually every state government has now changed the formula by which it estimates the dollar benefit of a tourism event. The $20 million formula used by the Liberal government in the late 1990s was misleading. This government is being honest. The formula the government is now using reveals that for every dollar spent on Telstra Rally Australia, the direct tourism benefit in Western Australia is $1.60. Using the exact same formula, we can compare Rally Australia with the Hyundai Hopman Cup. For every dollar spent in relation to the Hopman Cup, Western Australia receives $8.50 worth of economic benefit. For every dollar spent at the Australian University Games, Western Australia receives $27 worth of direct economic benefit. For every dollar that the state puts into the Masters Australian Football, it receives $84 of direct spend tourism benefit in Western Australia. It is not that I do not like Rally Australia; I have attended that event many times. However, I had to make a decision based on the interests of the tourism industry and Western Australian taxpayers. That is the right thing to do. I am prepared to make hard decisions. The member for Hillarys is not. The only time the member for Hillarys has said anything remotely accurate in recent weeks was when he said that the member for Kalgoorlie was too inexperienced to be the Leader of the Opposition. Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : I withdraw the word “deliberately”. I assume that I can leave in the words “mislead the public”. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr M. McGOWAN replied: (1)-(2) The question asked by the member for Hillarys shows that he did not listen to any of the points I put forward on this matter. I explained to him in this house, in public, what occurred. In the days of the Court government, when EventsCorp’s budget was about half what it is now, a misleading mechanism was used to work out the value generated by a particular event, whether it be sporting or cultural. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN : The member should listen to the answer. The methodology was very misleading, so the figures produced by Hon Norman Moore as Minister for Tourism were wildly inaccurate. They were commonly provided around Australia by various governments to blow out the estimated value of particular events. Therefore, under the former Liberal government, the public was misled on these matters. It arrived at $20 million and $30 million figures of economic benefit for one of these events, because it used a multiplying formula. In 2002, Treasury in the Australian Capital Territory examined the formula being used by most of the states and decided that it was widely inaccurate and that it sent dishonest information to the public. Virtually every state government has now changed the formula by which it estimates the dollar benefit of a tourism event. The $20 million formula used by the Liberal government in the late 1990s was misleading. This government is being honest. The formula the government is now using reveals that for every dollar spent on Telstra Rally Australia, the direct tourism benefit in Western Australia is $1.60. Using the exact same formula, we can compare Rally Australia with the Hyundai Hopman Cup. For every dollar spent in relation to the Hopman Cup, Western Australia receives $8.50 worth of economic benefit. For every dollar spent at the Australian University Games, Western Australia receives $27 worth of direct economic benefit. For every dollar that the state puts into the Masters Australian Football, it receives $84 of direct spend tourism benefit in Western Australia. It is not that I do not like Rally Australia; I have attended that event many times. However, I had to make a decision based on the interests of the tourism industry and Western Australian taxpayers. That is the right thing to do. I am prepared to make hard decisions. The member for Hillarys is not. The only time the member for Hillarys has said anything remotely accurate in recent weeks was when he said that the member for Kalgoorlie was too inexperienced to be the Leader of the Opposition. Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
(1)-(2) The question asked by the member for Hillarys shows that he did not listen to any of the points I put forward on this matter. I explained to him in this house, in public, what occurred. In the days of the Court government, when EventsCorp’s budget was about half what it is now, a misleading mechanism was used to work out the value generated by a particular event, whether it be sporting or cultural. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN : The member should listen to the answer. The methodology was very misleading, so the figures produced by Hon Norman Moore as Minister for Tourism were wildly inaccurate. They were commonly provided around Australia by various governments to blow out the estimated value of particular events. Therefore, under the former Liberal government, the public was misled on these matters. It arrived at $20 million and $30 million figures of economic benefit for one of these events, because it used a multiplying formula. In 2002, Treasury in the Australian Capital Territory examined the formula being used by most of the states and decided that it was widely inaccurate and that it sent dishonest information to the public. Virtually every state government has now changed the formula by which it estimates the dollar benefit of a tourism event. The $20 million formula used by the Liberal government in the late 1990s was misleading. This government is being honest. The formula the government is now using reveals that for every dollar spent on Telstra Rally Australia, the direct tourism benefit in Western Australia is $1.60. Using the exact same formula, we can compare Rally Australia with the Hyundai Hopman Cup. For every dollar spent in relation to the Hopman Cup, Western Australia receives $8.50 worth of economic benefit. For every dollar spent at the Australian University Games, Western Australia receives $27 worth of direct economic benefit. For every dollar that the state puts into the Masters Australian Football, it receives $84 of direct spend tourism benefit in Western Australia. It is not that I do not like Rally Australia; I have attended that event many times. However, I had to make a decision based on the interests of the tourism industry and Western Australian taxpayers. That is the right thing to do. I am prepared to make hard decisions. The member for Hillarys is not. The only time the member for Hillarys has said anything remotely accurate in recent weeks was when he said that the member for Kalgoorlie was too inexperienced to be the Leader of the Opposition. Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Mr M. McGOWAN : The member should listen to the answer. The methodology was very misleading, so the figures produced by Hon Norman Moore as Minister for Tourism were wildly inaccurate. They were commonly provided around Australia by various governments to blow out the estimated value of particular events. Therefore, under the former Liberal government, the public was misled on these matters. It arrived at $20 million and $30 million figures of economic benefit for one of these events, because it used a multiplying formula. In 2002, Treasury in the Australian Capital Territory examined the formula being used by most of the states and decided that it was widely inaccurate and that it sent dishonest information to the public. Virtually every state government has now changed the formula by which it estimates the dollar benefit of a tourism event. The $20 million formula used by the Liberal government in the late 1990s was misleading. This government is being honest. The formula the government is now using reveals that for every dollar spent on Telstra Rally Australia, the direct tourism benefit in Western Australia is $1.60. Using the exact same formula, we can compare Rally Australia with the Hyundai Hopman Cup. For every dollar spent in relation to the Hopman Cup, Western Australia receives $8.50 worth of economic benefit. For every dollar spent at the Australian University Games, Western Australia receives $27 worth of direct economic benefit. For every dollar that the state puts into the Masters Australian Football, it receives $84 of direct spend tourism benefit in Western Australia. It is not that I do not like Rally Australia; I have attended that event many times. However, I had to make a decision based on the interests of the tourism industry and Western Australian taxpayers. That is the right thing to do. I am prepared to make hard decisions. The member for Hillarys is not. The only time the member for Hillarys has said anything remotely accurate in recent weeks was when he said that the member for Kalgoorlie was too inexperienced to be the Leader of the Opposition. Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
Mr M. McGOWAN : The member should listen to the answer. The methodology was very misleading, so the figures produced by Hon Norman Moore as Minister for Tourism were wildly inaccurate. They were commonly provided around Australia by various governments to blow out the estimated value of particular events. Therefore, under the former Liberal government, the public was misled on these matters. It arrived at $20 million and $30 million figures of economic benefit for one of these events, because it used a multiplying formula. In 2002, Treasury in the Australian Capital Territory examined the formula being used by most of the states and decided that it was widely inaccurate and that it sent dishonest information to the public. Virtually every state government has now changed the formula by which it estimates the dollar benefit of a tourism event. The $20 million formula used by the Liberal government in the late 1990s was misleading. This government is being honest. The formula the government is now using reveals that for every dollar spent on Telstra Rally Australia, the direct tourism benefit in Western Australia is $1.60. Using the exact same formula, we can compare Rally Australia with the Hyundai Hopman Cup. For every dollar spent in relation to the Hopman Cup, Western Australia receives $8.50 worth of economic benefit. For every dollar spent at the Australian University Games, Western Australia receives $27 worth of direct economic benefit. For every dollar that the state puts into the Masters Australian Football, it receives $84 of direct spend tourism benefit in Western Australia. It is not that I do not like Rally Australia; I have attended that event many times. However, I had to make a decision based on the interests of the tourism industry and Western Australian taxpayers. That is the right thing to do. I am prepared to make hard decisions. The member for Hillarys is not. The only time the member for Hillarys has said anything remotely accurate in recent weeks was when he said that the member for Kalgoorlie was too inexperienced to be the Leader of the Opposition. Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
Several opposition members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! I call to order for the first time the Leader of the Opposition and the members for Vasse and Leschenault.
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.