❓ Mr. Wyatt questions the Minister for Housing regarding the WA government's agreement with the Commonwealth on remote communities funding, particularly the acceptance of $90 million without infrastructure upgrades. The Minister defends the decision as the only option to receive any funding.
AnsweredQoN 763Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
HOUSING —
REMOTE COMMUNITIES
763. Mr B.S. WYATT to the
Minister for Housing:
I refer to the agreement between the Western Australian
government and the commonwealth government about the withdrawal of commonwealth
funding for remote communities, which the minister referred to yesterday in his
brief ministerial statement, and to the fact that the $90 million offered to
Western Australia does not include funding to upgrade or maintain
infrastructure.
(1) Why did
the minister agree to such a short-term solution, which may well have
devastating long-term impacts on remote Aboriginal communities, if he found the
approach by the commonwealth to be reprehensible?
(2) Will the
state government take responsibility for those services that have now been
withdrawn by the commonwealth?
(3) Why did
the minister not stand up to Tony Abbott on this issue, as the South Australian
government has?
REMOTE COMMUNITIES
763. Mr B.S. WYATT to the
Minister for Housing:
I refer to the agreement between the Western Australian
government and the commonwealth government about the withdrawal of commonwealth
funding for remote communities, which the minister referred to yesterday in his
brief ministerial statement, and to the fact that the $90 million offered to
Western Australia does not include funding to upgrade or maintain
infrastructure.
(1) Why did
the minister agree to such a short-term solution, which may well have
devastating long-term impacts on remote Aboriginal communities, if he found the
approach by the commonwealth to be reprehensible?
(2) Will the
state government take responsibility for those services that have now been
withdrawn by the commonwealth?
(3) Why did
the minister not stand up to Tony Abbott on this issue, as the South Australian
government has?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member
for Victoria Park for the question, which was in three parts.
(1) He asked, firstly, why the government
accepted the figure of $90 million. Basically, the choice was accepting the $90
million or having no dollars at all. That is the situation.
Several members
interjected.
Mr W.R. MARMION : The member for Cockburn interjected; his
record of negotiating is appalling. We have lost the Inpex Corporation project
to the Northern Territory; it was appalling negotiation.
Point of Order
Mr
B.S. WYATT : Mr Speaker, I
think you heard my question. It was concise and in three parts about a very
important issue. I ask you to bring the minister back to the agreement that was
made.
The
SPEAKER : Minister, come back
to the point. Member for Cockburn, through the Chair. Member for Victoria Park,
I do not want to hear interjections.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr W.R. MARMION : Part (1) was: why did the government accept
the figure of $90 million? It was because the choice was $90 million or zero.
(2) The second part was: will WA take on the
state responsibility? We will see about that. At this stage that is what the
commonwealth has asked us to do. We have two years of funding, and we will see
if we can negotiate more funds from the commonwealth. What was the third part?
Mr B.S. Wyatt : Why did you not take a stand and fight for
the issue like South Australia?
(3) South Australia has not accepted any
money. We shall see what happens, as it might end up with nothing.
for Victoria Park for the question, which was in three parts.
(1) He asked, firstly, why the government
accepted the figure of $90 million. Basically, the choice was accepting the $90
million or having no dollars at all. That is the situation.
Several members
interjected.
Mr W.R. MARMION : The member for Cockburn interjected; his
record of negotiating is appalling. We have lost the Inpex Corporation project
to the Northern Territory; it was appalling negotiation.
Point of Order
Mr
B.S. WYATT : Mr Speaker, I
think you heard my question. It was concise and in three parts about a very
important issue. I ask you to bring the minister back to the agreement that was
made.
The
SPEAKER : Minister, come back
to the point. Member for Cockburn, through the Chair. Member for Victoria Park,
I do not want to hear interjections.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr W.R. MARMION : Part (1) was: why did the government accept
the figure of $90 million? It was because the choice was $90 million or zero.
(2) The second part was: will WA take on the
state responsibility? We will see about that. At this stage that is what the
commonwealth has asked us to do. We have two years of funding, and we will see
if we can negotiate more funds from the commonwealth. What was the third part?
Mr B.S. Wyatt : Why did you not take a stand and fight for
the issue like South Australia?
(3) South Australia has not accepted any
money. We shall see what happens, as it might end up with nothing.
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.