❓ Question regarding the origins of the Ellenbrook rail project commitment, opposition comments on the Public Transport Authority's integrity, and the ramifications of those comments. The Minister's answer defends the government's due diligence and criticizes the opposition's remarks.
AnsweredQoN 1019Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
ELLENBROOK RAIL PROJECT — PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY — OPPOSITION MEMBER COMMENTS
(1) Will the minister please inform the house on the origins of the government’s commitment to the Ellenbrook rail project? (2) Is the minister aware of any comments from the opposition questioning the integrity and professionalism of the Public Transport Authority? (3) If yes to (2), will the minister please detail those claims to this chamber; and what are the ramifications of such claims? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN
(1) Will the minister please inform the house on the origins of the government’s commitment to the Ellenbrook rail project? (2) Is the minister aware of any comments from the opposition questioning the integrity and professionalism of the Public Transport Authority? (3) If yes to (2), will the minister please detail those claims to this chamber; and what are the ramifications of such claims? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for her question. (1)-(3) The facts relating to the Ellenbrook rail project are quite clear: when in opposition, the Liberal Party, in the course of the election campaign, matched the then government’s commitment to build the Ellenbrook rail link. This was a commitment made in good faith. We assumed that the Labor Party, the then Premier, Hon Alan Carpenter, the former Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Mr Graham Giffard, Esq, former MLC, who was then a candidate out there, banging in signs for the Ellenbrook railway, would have carried out due diligence on the proposed project before they had committed to it because they had the resources of government to do so. After coming to government, I found out that no planning had been done and no money had been allocated, except in the context of the election promise that had been made. I instructed the Public Transport Authority to conduct a feasibility study on the project, the results of which will be, and were always intended to be, considered as part of a broader review of Perth’s public transport network—another bit of homework left undone by the prior government. That review is currently underway. Let there be no mistake: this government is doing the hard work that the former government failed to do on so many projects, including the so-called Ellenbrook railway. The Ellenbrook rail extension is a project that is conceivably worth hundreds of millions of dollars—possibly more than $1 billion. I am of the view that it is fundamentally important that this economically responsible government does not go throwing taxpayer money around without that due diligence. Secondly, the member asked whether I was aware of comments made by anyone opposite that questioned the integrity and professionalism of the PTA. I inform the member that, yes, unfortunately, I am aware of such comments made in an article that, fortuitously, I happen to have a copy of with me. It was an article by Chris Thomson that appeared today on the WAtoday .com.au website, in which Hon Ken Travers, who presumably is the main sponsor of this article, stated in part — I think the PTA is opposed to the Ellenbrook railway line and the studies are an attempt to justify their position and get the minister on board to break the Barnett Government’s election promise to build the railway … That is the quote attributed to Hon Ken Travers. This article contains a number of other references to PTA personnel. I think what they add up to, if members bother to read this story, is that the opposition spokesman’s release, which came out today, and his comments as recorded in this article about the PTA and its senior management team, are a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the professional standing of those people, and I think that is disgraceful. Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : I draw Mr President’s attention to standing order 97, and that part of it that states — No Member shall … imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly … It is not the first time this minister has answered a question by attacking the motives of this member, and whilst he is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself — Hon Ken Travers : Big enough, thank you very much! Hon SUE ELLERY : — I am getting a bit tired of this minister wasting question time to do this, and I object to the language that he used. Hon Simon O’Brien : You don’t even understand the standing order! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
(2) Is the minister aware of any comments from the opposition questioning the integrity and professionalism of the Public Transport Authority? (3) If yes to (2), will the minister please detail those claims to this chamber; and what are the ramifications of such claims? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for her question. (1)-(3) The facts relating to the Ellenbrook rail project are quite clear: when in opposition, the Liberal Party, in the course of the election campaign, matched the then government’s commitment to build the Ellenbrook rail link. This was a commitment made in good faith. We assumed that the Labor Party, the then Premier, Hon Alan Carpenter, the former Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Mr Graham Giffard, Esq, former MLC, who was then a candidate out there, banging in signs for the Ellenbrook railway, would have carried out due diligence on the proposed project before they had committed to it because they had the resources of government to do so. After coming to government, I found out that no planning had been done and no money had been allocated, except in the context of the election promise that had been made. I instructed the Public Transport Authority to conduct a feasibility study on the project, the results of which will be, and were always intended to be, considered as part of a broader review of Perth’s public transport network—another bit of homework left undone by the prior government. That review is currently underway. Let there be no mistake: this government is doing the hard work that the former government failed to do on so many projects, including the so-called Ellenbrook railway. The Ellenbrook rail extension is a project that is conceivably worth hundreds of millions of dollars—possibly more than $1 billion. I am of the view that it is fundamentally important that this economically responsible government does not go throwing taxpayer money around without that due diligence. Secondly, the member asked whether I was aware of comments made by anyone opposite that questioned the integrity and professionalism of the PTA. I inform the member that, yes, unfortunately, I am aware of such comments made in an article that, fortuitously, I happen to have a copy of with me. It was an article by Chris Thomson that appeared today on the WAtoday .com.au website, in which Hon Ken Travers, who presumably is the main sponsor of this article, stated in part — I think the PTA is opposed to the Ellenbrook railway line and the studies are an attempt to justify their position and get the minister on board to break the Barnett Government’s election promise to build the railway … That is the quote attributed to Hon Ken Travers. This article contains a number of other references to PTA personnel. I think what they add up to, if members bother to read this story, is that the opposition spokesman’s release, which came out today, and his comments as recorded in this article about the PTA and its senior management team, are a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the professional standing of those people, and I think that is disgraceful. Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : I draw Mr President’s attention to standing order 97, and that part of it that states — No Member shall … imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly … It is not the first time this minister has answered a question by attacking the motives of this member, and whilst he is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself — Hon Ken Travers : Big enough, thank you very much! Hon SUE ELLERY : — I am getting a bit tired of this minister wasting question time to do this, and I object to the language that he used. Hon Simon O’Brien : You don’t even understand the standing order! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
(3) If yes to (2), will the minister please detail those claims to this chamber; and what are the ramifications of such claims? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for her question. (1)-(3) The facts relating to the Ellenbrook rail project are quite clear: when in opposition, the Liberal Party, in the course of the election campaign, matched the then government’s commitment to build the Ellenbrook rail link. This was a commitment made in good faith. We assumed that the Labor Party, the then Premier, Hon Alan Carpenter, the former Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Mr Graham Giffard, Esq, former MLC, who was then a candidate out there, banging in signs for the Ellenbrook railway, would have carried out due diligence on the proposed project before they had committed to it because they had the resources of government to do so. After coming to government, I found out that no planning had been done and no money had been allocated, except in the context of the election promise that had been made. I instructed the Public Transport Authority to conduct a feasibility study on the project, the results of which will be, and were always intended to be, considered as part of a broader review of Perth’s public transport network—another bit of homework left undone by the prior government. That review is currently underway. Let there be no mistake: this government is doing the hard work that the former government failed to do on so many projects, including the so-called Ellenbrook railway. The Ellenbrook rail extension is a project that is conceivably worth hundreds of millions of dollars—possibly more than $1 billion. I am of the view that it is fundamentally important that this economically responsible government does not go throwing taxpayer money around without that due diligence. Secondly, the member asked whether I was aware of comments made by anyone opposite that questioned the integrity and professionalism of the PTA. I inform the member that, yes, unfortunately, I am aware of such comments made in an article that, fortuitously, I happen to have a copy of with me. It was an article by Chris Thomson that appeared today on the WAtoday .com.au website, in which Hon Ken Travers, who presumably is the main sponsor of this article, stated in part — I think the PTA is opposed to the Ellenbrook railway line and the studies are an attempt to justify their position and get the minister on board to break the Barnett Government’s election promise to build the railway … That is the quote attributed to Hon Ken Travers. This article contains a number of other references to PTA personnel. I think what they add up to, if members bother to read this story, is that the opposition spokesman’s release, which came out today, and his comments as recorded in this article about the PTA and its senior management team, are a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the professional standing of those people, and I think that is disgraceful. Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : I draw Mr President’s attention to standing order 97, and that part of it that states — No Member shall … imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly … It is not the first time this minister has answered a question by attacking the motives of this member, and whilst he is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself — Hon Ken Travers : Big enough, thank you very much! Hon SUE ELLERY : — I am getting a bit tired of this minister wasting question time to do this, and I object to the language that he used. Hon Simon O’Brien : You don’t even understand the standing order! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for her question. (1)-(3) The facts relating to the Ellenbrook rail project are quite clear: when in opposition, the Liberal Party, in the course of the election campaign, matched the then government’s commitment to build the Ellenbrook rail link. This was a commitment made in good faith. We assumed that the Labor Party, the then Premier, Hon Alan Carpenter, the former Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Mr Graham Giffard, Esq, former MLC, who was then a candidate out there, banging in signs for the Ellenbrook railway, would have carried out due diligence on the proposed project before they had committed to it because they had the resources of government to do so. After coming to government, I found out that no planning had been done and no money had been allocated, except in the context of the election promise that had been made. I instructed the Public Transport Authority to conduct a feasibility study on the project, the results of which will be, and were always intended to be, considered as part of a broader review of Perth’s public transport network—another bit of homework left undone by the prior government. That review is currently underway. Let there be no mistake: this government is doing the hard work that the former government failed to do on so many projects, including the so-called Ellenbrook railway. The Ellenbrook rail extension is a project that is conceivably worth hundreds of millions of dollars—possibly more than $1 billion. I am of the view that it is fundamentally important that this economically responsible government does not go throwing taxpayer money around without that due diligence. Secondly, the member asked whether I was aware of comments made by anyone opposite that questioned the integrity and professionalism of the PTA. I inform the member that, yes, unfortunately, I am aware of such comments made in an article that, fortuitously, I happen to have a copy of with me. It was an article by Chris Thomson that appeared today on the WAtoday .com.au website, in which Hon Ken Travers, who presumably is the main sponsor of this article, stated in part — I think the PTA is opposed to the Ellenbrook railway line and the studies are an attempt to justify their position and get the minister on board to break the Barnett Government’s election promise to build the railway … That is the quote attributed to Hon Ken Travers. This article contains a number of other references to PTA personnel. I think what they add up to, if members bother to read this story, is that the opposition spokesman’s release, which came out today, and his comments as recorded in this article about the PTA and its senior management team, are a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the professional standing of those people, and I think that is disgraceful. Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : I draw Mr President’s attention to standing order 97, and that part of it that states — No Member shall … imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly … It is not the first time this minister has answered a question by attacking the motives of this member, and whilst he is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself — Hon Ken Travers : Big enough, thank you very much! Hon SUE ELLERY : — I am getting a bit tired of this minister wasting question time to do this, and I object to the language that he used. Hon Simon O’Brien : You don’t even understand the standing order! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
I thank the honourable member for her question. (1)-(3) The facts relating to the Ellenbrook rail project are quite clear: when in opposition, the Liberal Party, in the course of the election campaign, matched the then government’s commitment to build the Ellenbrook rail link. This was a commitment made in good faith. We assumed that the Labor Party, the then Premier, Hon Alan Carpenter, the former Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Mr Graham Giffard, Esq, former MLC, who was then a candidate out there, banging in signs for the Ellenbrook railway, would have carried out due diligence on the proposed project before they had committed to it because they had the resources of government to do so. After coming to government, I found out that no planning had been done and no money had been allocated, except in the context of the election promise that had been made. I instructed the Public Transport Authority to conduct a feasibility study on the project, the results of which will be, and were always intended to be, considered as part of a broader review of Perth’s public transport network—another bit of homework left undone by the prior government. That review is currently underway. Let there be no mistake: this government is doing the hard work that the former government failed to do on so many projects, including the so-called Ellenbrook railway. The Ellenbrook rail extension is a project that is conceivably worth hundreds of millions of dollars—possibly more than $1 billion. I am of the view that it is fundamentally important that this economically responsible government does not go throwing taxpayer money around without that due diligence. Secondly, the member asked whether I was aware of comments made by anyone opposite that questioned the integrity and professionalism of the PTA. I inform the member that, yes, unfortunately, I am aware of such comments made in an article that, fortuitously, I happen to have a copy of with me. It was an article by Chris Thomson that appeared today on the WAtoday .com.au website, in which Hon Ken Travers, who presumably is the main sponsor of this article, stated in part — I think the PTA is opposed to the Ellenbrook railway line and the studies are an attempt to justify their position and get the minister on board to break the Barnett Government’s election promise to build the railway … That is the quote attributed to Hon Ken Travers. This article contains a number of other references to PTA personnel. I think what they add up to, if members bother to read this story, is that the opposition spokesman’s release, which came out today, and his comments as recorded in this article about the PTA and its senior management team, are a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the professional standing of those people, and I think that is disgraceful. Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : I draw Mr President’s attention to standing order 97, and that part of it that states — No Member shall … imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly … It is not the first time this minister has answered a question by attacking the motives of this member, and whilst he is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself — Hon Ken Travers : Big enough, thank you very much! Hon SUE ELLERY : — I am getting a bit tired of this minister wasting question time to do this, and I object to the language that he used. Hon Simon O’Brien : You don’t even understand the standing order! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
(1)-(3) The facts relating to the Ellenbrook rail project are quite clear: when in opposition, the Liberal Party, in the course of the election campaign, matched the then government’s commitment to build the Ellenbrook rail link. This was a commitment made in good faith. We assumed that the Labor Party, the then Premier, Hon Alan Carpenter, the former Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Mr Graham Giffard, Esq, former MLC, who was then a candidate out there, banging in signs for the Ellenbrook railway, would have carried out due diligence on the proposed project before they had committed to it because they had the resources of government to do so. After coming to government, I found out that no planning had been done and no money had been allocated, except in the context of the election promise that had been made. I instructed the Public Transport Authority to conduct a feasibility study on the project, the results of which will be, and were always intended to be, considered as part of a broader review of Perth’s public transport network—another bit of homework left undone by the prior government. That review is currently underway. Let there be no mistake: this government is doing the hard work that the former government failed to do on so many projects, including the so-called Ellenbrook railway. The Ellenbrook rail extension is a project that is conceivably worth hundreds of millions of dollars—possibly more than $1 billion. I am of the view that it is fundamentally important that this economically responsible government does not go throwing taxpayer money around without that due diligence. Secondly, the member asked whether I was aware of comments made by anyone opposite that questioned the integrity and professionalism of the PTA. I inform the member that, yes, unfortunately, I am aware of such comments made in an article that, fortuitously, I happen to have a copy of with me. It was an article by Chris Thomson that appeared today on the WAtoday .com.au website, in which Hon Ken Travers, who presumably is the main sponsor of this article, stated in part — I think the PTA is opposed to the Ellenbrook railway line and the studies are an attempt to justify their position and get the minister on board to break the Barnett Government’s election promise to build the railway … That is the quote attributed to Hon Ken Travers. This article contains a number of other references to PTA personnel. I think what they add up to, if members bother to read this story, is that the opposition spokesman’s release, which came out today, and his comments as recorded in this article about the PTA and its senior management team, are a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the professional standing of those people, and I think that is disgraceful. Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : I draw Mr President’s attention to standing order 97, and that part of it that states — No Member shall … imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly … It is not the first time this minister has answered a question by attacking the motives of this member, and whilst he is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself — Hon Ken Travers : Big enough, thank you very much! Hon SUE ELLERY : — I am getting a bit tired of this minister wasting question time to do this, and I object to the language that he used. Hon Simon O’Brien : You don’t even understand the standing order! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
This article contains a number of other references to PTA personnel. I think what they add up to, if members bother to read this story, is that the opposition spokesman’s release, which came out today, and his comments as recorded in this article about the PTA and its senior management team, are a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the professional standing of those people, and I think that is disgraceful.
Hon Ken Travers : Big enough, thank you very much! Hon SUE ELLERY : — I am getting a bit tired of this minister wasting question time to do this, and I object to the language that he used. Hon Simon O’Brien : You don’t even understand the standing order! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon SUE ELLERY : — I am getting a bit tired of this minister wasting question time to do this, and I object to the language that he used. Hon Simon O’Brien : You don’t even understand the standing order! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon Simon O’Brien : You don’t even understand the standing order! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
(2) Is the minister aware of any comments from the opposition questioning the integrity and professionalism of the Public Transport Authority? (3) If yes to (2), will the minister please detail those claims to this chamber; and what are the ramifications of such claims? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for her question. (1)-(3) The facts relating to the Ellenbrook rail project are quite clear: when in opposition, the Liberal Party, in the course of the election campaign, matched the then government’s commitment to build the Ellenbrook rail link. This was a commitment made in good faith. We assumed that the Labor Party, the then Premier, Hon Alan Carpenter, the former Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Mr Graham Giffard, Esq, former MLC, who was then a candidate out there, banging in signs for the Ellenbrook railway, would have carried out due diligence on the proposed project before they had committed to it because they had the resources of government to do so. After coming to government, I found out that no planning had been done and no money had been allocated, except in the context of the election promise that had been made. I instructed the Public Transport Authority to conduct a feasibility study on the project, the results of which will be, and were always intended to be, considered as part of a broader review of Perth’s public transport network—another bit of homework left undone by the prior government. That review is currently underway. Let there be no mistake: this government is doing the hard work that the former government failed to do on so many projects, including the so-called Ellenbrook railway. The Ellenbrook rail extension is a project that is conceivably worth hundreds of millions of dollars—possibly more than $1 billion. I am of the view that it is fundamentally important that this economically responsible government does not go throwing taxpayer money around without that due diligence. Secondly, the member asked whether I was aware of comments made by anyone opposite that questioned the integrity and professionalism of the PTA. I inform the member that, yes, unfortunately, I am aware of such comments made in an article that, fortuitously, I happen to have a copy of with me. It was an article by Chris Thomson that appeared today on the WAtoday .com.au website, in which Hon Ken Travers, who presumably is the main sponsor of this article, stated in part — I think the PTA is opposed to the Ellenbrook railway line and the studies are an attempt to justify their position and get the minister on board to break the Barnett Government’s election promise to build the railway … That is the quote attributed to Hon Ken Travers. This article contains a number of other references to PTA personnel. I think what they add up to, if members bother to read this story, is that the opposition spokesman’s release, which came out today, and his comments as recorded in this article about the PTA and its senior management team, are a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the professional standing of those people, and I think that is disgraceful. Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : I draw Mr President’s attention to standing order 97, and that part of it that states — No Member shall … imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly … It is not the first time this minister has answered a question by attacking the motives of this member, and whilst he is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself — Hon Ken Travers : Big enough, thank you very much! Hon SUE ELLERY : — I am getting a bit tired of this minister wasting question time to do this, and I object to the language that he used. Hon Simon O’Brien : You don’t even understand the standing order! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
(3) If yes to (2), will the minister please detail those claims to this chamber; and what are the ramifications of such claims? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for her question. (1)-(3) The facts relating to the Ellenbrook rail project are quite clear: when in opposition, the Liberal Party, in the course of the election campaign, matched the then government’s commitment to build the Ellenbrook rail link. This was a commitment made in good faith. We assumed that the Labor Party, the then Premier, Hon Alan Carpenter, the former Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Mr Graham Giffard, Esq, former MLC, who was then a candidate out there, banging in signs for the Ellenbrook railway, would have carried out due diligence on the proposed project before they had committed to it because they had the resources of government to do so. After coming to government, I found out that no planning had been done and no money had been allocated, except in the context of the election promise that had been made. I instructed the Public Transport Authority to conduct a feasibility study on the project, the results of which will be, and were always intended to be, considered as part of a broader review of Perth’s public transport network—another bit of homework left undone by the prior government. That review is currently underway. Let there be no mistake: this government is doing the hard work that the former government failed to do on so many projects, including the so-called Ellenbrook railway. The Ellenbrook rail extension is a project that is conceivably worth hundreds of millions of dollars—possibly more than $1 billion. I am of the view that it is fundamentally important that this economically responsible government does not go throwing taxpayer money around without that due diligence. Secondly, the member asked whether I was aware of comments made by anyone opposite that questioned the integrity and professionalism of the PTA. I inform the member that, yes, unfortunately, I am aware of such comments made in an article that, fortuitously, I happen to have a copy of with me. It was an article by Chris Thomson that appeared today on the WAtoday .com.au website, in which Hon Ken Travers, who presumably is the main sponsor of this article, stated in part — I think the PTA is opposed to the Ellenbrook railway line and the studies are an attempt to justify their position and get the minister on board to break the Barnett Government’s election promise to build the railway … That is the quote attributed to Hon Ken Travers. This article contains a number of other references to PTA personnel. I think what they add up to, if members bother to read this story, is that the opposition spokesman’s release, which came out today, and his comments as recorded in this article about the PTA and its senior management team, are a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the professional standing of those people, and I think that is disgraceful. Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : I draw Mr President’s attention to standing order 97, and that part of it that states — No Member shall … imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly … It is not the first time this minister has answered a question by attacking the motives of this member, and whilst he is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself — Hon Ken Travers : Big enough, thank you very much! Hon SUE ELLERY : — I am getting a bit tired of this minister wasting question time to do this, and I object to the language that he used. Hon Simon O’Brien : You don’t even understand the standing order! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for her question. (1)-(3) The facts relating to the Ellenbrook rail project are quite clear: when in opposition, the Liberal Party, in the course of the election campaign, matched the then government’s commitment to build the Ellenbrook rail link. This was a commitment made in good faith. We assumed that the Labor Party, the then Premier, Hon Alan Carpenter, the former Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Mr Graham Giffard, Esq, former MLC, who was then a candidate out there, banging in signs for the Ellenbrook railway, would have carried out due diligence on the proposed project before they had committed to it because they had the resources of government to do so. After coming to government, I found out that no planning had been done and no money had been allocated, except in the context of the election promise that had been made. I instructed the Public Transport Authority to conduct a feasibility study on the project, the results of which will be, and were always intended to be, considered as part of a broader review of Perth’s public transport network—another bit of homework left undone by the prior government. That review is currently underway. Let there be no mistake: this government is doing the hard work that the former government failed to do on so many projects, including the so-called Ellenbrook railway. The Ellenbrook rail extension is a project that is conceivably worth hundreds of millions of dollars—possibly more than $1 billion. I am of the view that it is fundamentally important that this economically responsible government does not go throwing taxpayer money around without that due diligence. Secondly, the member asked whether I was aware of comments made by anyone opposite that questioned the integrity and professionalism of the PTA. I inform the member that, yes, unfortunately, I am aware of such comments made in an article that, fortuitously, I happen to have a copy of with me. It was an article by Chris Thomson that appeared today on the WAtoday .com.au website, in which Hon Ken Travers, who presumably is the main sponsor of this article, stated in part — I think the PTA is opposed to the Ellenbrook railway line and the studies are an attempt to justify their position and get the minister on board to break the Barnett Government’s election promise to build the railway … That is the quote attributed to Hon Ken Travers. This article contains a number of other references to PTA personnel. I think what they add up to, if members bother to read this story, is that the opposition spokesman’s release, which came out today, and his comments as recorded in this article about the PTA and its senior management team, are a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the professional standing of those people, and I think that is disgraceful. Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : I draw Mr President’s attention to standing order 97, and that part of it that states — No Member shall … imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly … It is not the first time this minister has answered a question by attacking the motives of this member, and whilst he is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself — Hon Ken Travers : Big enough, thank you very much! Hon SUE ELLERY : — I am getting a bit tired of this minister wasting question time to do this, and I object to the language that he used. Hon Simon O’Brien : You don’t even understand the standing order! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
I thank the honourable member for her question. (1)-(3) The facts relating to the Ellenbrook rail project are quite clear: when in opposition, the Liberal Party, in the course of the election campaign, matched the then government’s commitment to build the Ellenbrook rail link. This was a commitment made in good faith. We assumed that the Labor Party, the then Premier, Hon Alan Carpenter, the former Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Mr Graham Giffard, Esq, former MLC, who was then a candidate out there, banging in signs for the Ellenbrook railway, would have carried out due diligence on the proposed project before they had committed to it because they had the resources of government to do so. After coming to government, I found out that no planning had been done and no money had been allocated, except in the context of the election promise that had been made. I instructed the Public Transport Authority to conduct a feasibility study on the project, the results of which will be, and were always intended to be, considered as part of a broader review of Perth’s public transport network—another bit of homework left undone by the prior government. That review is currently underway. Let there be no mistake: this government is doing the hard work that the former government failed to do on so many projects, including the so-called Ellenbrook railway. The Ellenbrook rail extension is a project that is conceivably worth hundreds of millions of dollars—possibly more than $1 billion. I am of the view that it is fundamentally important that this economically responsible government does not go throwing taxpayer money around without that due diligence. Secondly, the member asked whether I was aware of comments made by anyone opposite that questioned the integrity and professionalism of the PTA. I inform the member that, yes, unfortunately, I am aware of such comments made in an article that, fortuitously, I happen to have a copy of with me. It was an article by Chris Thomson that appeared today on the WAtoday .com.au website, in which Hon Ken Travers, who presumably is the main sponsor of this article, stated in part — I think the PTA is opposed to the Ellenbrook railway line and the studies are an attempt to justify their position and get the minister on board to break the Barnett Government’s election promise to build the railway … That is the quote attributed to Hon Ken Travers. This article contains a number of other references to PTA personnel. I think what they add up to, if members bother to read this story, is that the opposition spokesman’s release, which came out today, and his comments as recorded in this article about the PTA and its senior management team, are a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the professional standing of those people, and I think that is disgraceful. Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : I draw Mr President’s attention to standing order 97, and that part of it that states — No Member shall … imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly … It is not the first time this minister has answered a question by attacking the motives of this member, and whilst he is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself — Hon Ken Travers : Big enough, thank you very much! Hon SUE ELLERY : — I am getting a bit tired of this minister wasting question time to do this, and I object to the language that he used. Hon Simon O’Brien : You don’t even understand the standing order! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
(1)-(3) The facts relating to the Ellenbrook rail project are quite clear: when in opposition, the Liberal Party, in the course of the election campaign, matched the then government’s commitment to build the Ellenbrook rail link. This was a commitment made in good faith. We assumed that the Labor Party, the then Premier, Hon Alan Carpenter, the former Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and Mr Graham Giffard, Esq, former MLC, who was then a candidate out there, banging in signs for the Ellenbrook railway, would have carried out due diligence on the proposed project before they had committed to it because they had the resources of government to do so. After coming to government, I found out that no planning had been done and no money had been allocated, except in the context of the election promise that had been made. I instructed the Public Transport Authority to conduct a feasibility study on the project, the results of which will be, and were always intended to be, considered as part of a broader review of Perth’s public transport network—another bit of homework left undone by the prior government. That review is currently underway. Let there be no mistake: this government is doing the hard work that the former government failed to do on so many projects, including the so-called Ellenbrook railway. The Ellenbrook rail extension is a project that is conceivably worth hundreds of millions of dollars—possibly more than $1 billion. I am of the view that it is fundamentally important that this economically responsible government does not go throwing taxpayer money around without that due diligence. Secondly, the member asked whether I was aware of comments made by anyone opposite that questioned the integrity and professionalism of the PTA. I inform the member that, yes, unfortunately, I am aware of such comments made in an article that, fortuitously, I happen to have a copy of with me. It was an article by Chris Thomson that appeared today on the WAtoday .com.au website, in which Hon Ken Travers, who presumably is the main sponsor of this article, stated in part — I think the PTA is opposed to the Ellenbrook railway line and the studies are an attempt to justify their position and get the minister on board to break the Barnett Government’s election promise to build the railway … That is the quote attributed to Hon Ken Travers. This article contains a number of other references to PTA personnel. I think what they add up to, if members bother to read this story, is that the opposition spokesman’s release, which came out today, and his comments as recorded in this article about the PTA and its senior management team, are a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the professional standing of those people, and I think that is disgraceful. Point of Order Hon SUE ELLERY : I draw Mr President’s attention to standing order 97, and that part of it that states — No Member shall … imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly … It is not the first time this minister has answered a question by attacking the motives of this member, and whilst he is big enough and ugly enough to look after himself — Hon Ken Travers : Big enough, thank you very much! Hon SUE ELLERY : — I am getting a bit tired of this minister wasting question time to do this, and I object to the language that he used. Hon Simon O’Brien : You don’t even understand the standing order! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
This article contains a number of other references to PTA personnel. I think what they add up to, if members bother to read this story, is that the opposition spokesman’s release, which came out today, and his comments as recorded in this article about the PTA and its senior management team, are a deliberate and calculated attempt to undermine the professional standing of those people, and I think that is disgraceful.
Hon Ken Travers : Big enough, thank you very much! Hon SUE ELLERY : — I am getting a bit tired of this minister wasting question time to do this, and I object to the language that he used. Hon Simon O’Brien : You don’t even understand the standing order! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon SUE ELLERY : — I am getting a bit tired of this minister wasting question time to do this, and I object to the language that he used. Hon Simon O’Brien : You don’t even understand the standing order! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon Simon O’Brien : You don’t even understand the standing order! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon Simon O’Brien : No, you don’t! Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon SUE ELLERY : Yes, I do. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
The PRESIDENT : Order, members. A point of order has been taken; I did not hear any phrases used by the Minister for Transport that could be objectionable in terms of being unparliamentary. But there is a convention—I think it is actually enshrined in that standing order—that if I consider the words to be objectionable or unparliamentary, then I order them to be withdrawn forthwith. As I said, I did not hear the Minister for Transport specifically use any terms that I considered unparliamentary; however, I encourage him to get to the point of his answer, which I believe he is a fair way through. It was a three-part question and he is up to about two and three-quarters, I think, at this stage. The Minister for Transport has the call. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, I thank you for providing clarification on that standing order, because obviously the Leader of the Opposition needed it. I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
I was not implying any motives to the opposition spokesman; I was bemoaning what he has caused to be published, which is an attack on the professional credibility of the senior officers and management of the PTA in terms of the advice they have been giving to me. Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon Ken Travers : No, it was an attack on you, you fool! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear, oh dear! Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon Ken Travers : It’s not an attack on them, you idiot! Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Oh dear; oh dear! The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
The PRESIDENT : Order, members. Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : Mr President, it is water off a duck’s back, and I hope Hansard will only record that there was an unruly interjection—nothing else. The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
The PRESIDENT : Order, members. I think those couple of interjections actually demonstrate the previous point. How this standing order works is that if a member takes objection to any words, then there is a bit of a convention, if members like, that the member will withdraw. But if the member does not choose to withdraw, then it is my role, as the Presiding Officer, to determine whether the words are unparliamentary. I consider that the couple of phrases I heard in the interjections were probably more unparliamentary than any phrase I heard from the Minister for Transport. However, we all have to be a little bit thick-skinned in this place: if you give it out, you have to be prepared to take it. That being the case, it is my duty to maintain order, respect and civility between members, and that is what I intend to do. Minister for Transport, have you finished your answer? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN : I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely absurd, and not a little offensive, for the opposition spokesman to suggest that PTA officers are somehow trying to mislead the government or misadvise the government. When members think about it, it is pretty absurd. This article contains reference to such solid officers as Peter Martinovich; does the opposition spokesman seriously think that Peter Martinovich has suddenly gone anti-railway on us and he is just trying to muck us around? Is executive director Mark Burgess to be bemoaned for doing the wrong thing by this government? I certainly have faith in the advice that is provided in good faith by these officers. Perhaps we will find out in due course what Hon Ken Travers’ position is on these same matters, but if he is aspiring to be a minister, I hope he is not expecting to work cooperatively with some of the officers who he is tending to publicly seek to embarrass.
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.