❓ Question regarding the formalisation of regional arrangements for local governments, specifically whether 'formalising' means 'amalgamation'. The Minister's answer discusses various regional arrangements and resource-sharing initiatives, indicating a flexible approach beyond just amalgamations.
AnsweredQoN 217Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS - AMALGAMATIONS
I refer to the tabled report on local government reform. It states in the report that the board believes there is a pressing need for regional arrangements to be formalised in many parts of the state. It recommends that regional arrangements be further extended and formalised and that all local governments become members of a regional body. It goes on to state that the new entities formed by the proposed amalgamations should become members of a regional group and cooperate with other local governments and share resources where appropriate. Does “formalising” mean “amalgamation”; and, if not, what does the minister believe “formalising” means? Hon JON FORD
I refer to the tabled report on local government reform. It states in the report that the board believes there is a pressing need for regional arrangements to be formalised in many parts of the state. It recommends that regional arrangements be further extended and formalised and that all local governments become members of a regional body. It goes on to state that the new entities formed by the proposed amalgamations should become members of a regional group and cooperate with other local governments and share resources where appropriate. Does “formalising” mean “amalgamation”; and, if not, what does the minister believe “formalising” means? Hon JON FORD
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The great thing about the report is that it deals with a range of different scenarios that can assist local governments that are struggling to form more efficient bodies to get on with their business. I was particularly interested in that part of the report. There are already informal arrangements that create tight regional arrangements, such as the Pilbara Regional Council. The idea for the council was pushed along by a number of friends of mine and led to the creation of an effective lobby group with the state government. The council also dealt with prioritising from a lobbying perspective, particularly with road resources and other resources within that region. I have talked to members of the board, and they have told me that legislative impediments prevented them from making a much more formalised arrangement. I think that they were working towards a parish-type arrangement. That is what I took away from those discussions. The Northam council and other councils in the wheatbelt have arrangements with the Voluntary Regional Organisation of Councils. They would like to be given inducements and encouragement and financial assistance to strengthen those arrangements to deal with their local issues. Aside from the response from the press, the responses to the report have involved a heap of creative solutions, some of which exist within the legislation and some which would have to be expanded to deal with local governments’ individual issues. That is what I see when I look at that report. Of course, other solutions mentioned in the report include resource sharing. I spent Anzac Day at Tambellup. The Shire of Tambellup has entered into a resource-sharing arrangement with the Shire of Broomehill and they now share the same chief executive officer. Those councils talked to me about forming a regional council or a body that could help expand their resource sharing. There has been a heap of creative responses to some of the challenges that are facing local government. Community feedback on the report should indicate the favoured suggestions. The interesting thing about the amalgamation debate is that it has not focused on one aspect. Blind Freddy can see that amalgamations will not always deliver benefits. Indeed, even those who are pushing for amalgamations can see that. I hope I have answered some of Hon Robyn McSweeney’s questions and given her an insight into what I am thinking. Of course, in three months, when we have received community feedback, the government will make a formal response to the suggestions and we will move on from there. KULCHA - FUNDING BY OFFICE OF MULTICULTURAL INTERESTS 218. Hon GIZ WATSON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests: (1) Why has Multicultural Arts WA’s flagship organisation, Kulcha, lost funding? (2) Would it be accurate to say that the loss of $50 000 in funding to Kulcha is a loss of 15 per cent from the annual budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests? (3) If yes to (2), why is the Office of Multicultural Interests receiving only $375 000 a year when the state’s economy is so healthy? (4) Has the government lost its commitment to multiculturalism following the resignation of Dr Gallop? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The great thing about the report is that it deals with a range of different scenarios that can assist local governments that are struggling to form more efficient bodies to get on with their business. I was particularly interested in that part of the report. There are already informal arrangements that create tight regional arrangements, such as the Pilbara Regional Council. The idea for the council was pushed along by a number of friends of mine and led to the creation of an effective lobby group with the state government. The council also dealt with prioritising from a lobbying perspective, particularly with road resources and other resources within that region. I have talked to members of the board, and they have told me that legislative impediments prevented them from making a much more formalised arrangement. I think that they were working towards a parish-type arrangement. That is what I took away from those discussions. The Northam council and other councils in the wheatbelt have arrangements with the Voluntary Regional Organisation of Councils. They would like to be given inducements and encouragement and financial assistance to strengthen those arrangements to deal with their local issues. Aside from the response from the press, the responses to the report have involved a heap of creative solutions, some of which exist within the legislation and some which would have to be expanded to deal with local governments’ individual issues. That is what I see when I look at that report. Of course, other solutions mentioned in the report include resource sharing. I spent Anzac Day at Tambellup. The Shire of Tambellup has entered into a resource-sharing arrangement with the Shire of Broomehill and they now share the same chief executive officer. Those councils talked to me about forming a regional council or a body that could help expand their resource sharing. There has been a heap of creative responses to some of the challenges that are facing local government. Community feedback on the report should indicate the favoured suggestions. The interesting thing about the amalgamation debate is that it has not focused on one aspect. Blind Freddy can see that amalgamations will not always deliver benefits. Indeed, even those who are pushing for amalgamations can see that. I hope I have answered some of Hon Robyn McSweeney’s questions and given her an insight into what I am thinking. Of course, in three months, when we have received community feedback, the government will make a formal response to the suggestions and we will move on from there. KULCHA - FUNDING BY OFFICE OF MULTICULTURAL INTERESTS 218. Hon GIZ WATSON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests: (1) Why has Multicultural Arts WA’s flagship organisation, Kulcha, lost funding? (2) Would it be accurate to say that the loss of $50 000 in funding to Kulcha is a loss of 15 per cent from the annual budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests? (3) If yes to (2), why is the Office of Multicultural Interests receiving only $375 000 a year when the state’s economy is so healthy? (4) Has the government lost its commitment to multiculturalism following the resignation of Dr Gallop? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The great thing about the report is that it deals with a range of different scenarios that can assist local governments that are struggling to form more efficient bodies to get on with their business. I was particularly interested in that part of the report. There are already informal arrangements that create tight regional arrangements, such as the Pilbara Regional Council. The idea for the council was pushed along by a number of friends of mine and led to the creation of an effective lobby group with the state government. The council also dealt with prioritising from a lobbying perspective, particularly with road resources and other resources within that region. I have talked to members of the board, and they have told me that legislative impediments prevented them from making a much more formalised arrangement. I think that they were working towards a parish-type arrangement. That is what I took away from those discussions. The Northam council and other councils in the wheatbelt have arrangements with the Voluntary Regional Organisation of Councils. They would like to be given inducements and encouragement and financial assistance to strengthen those arrangements to deal with their local issues. Aside from the response from the press, the responses to the report have involved a heap of creative solutions, some of which exist within the legislation and some which would have to be expanded to deal with local governments’ individual issues. That is what I see when I look at that report. Of course, other solutions mentioned in the report include resource sharing. I spent Anzac Day at Tambellup. The Shire of Tambellup has entered into a resource-sharing arrangement with the Shire of Broomehill and they now share the same chief executive officer. Those councils talked to me about forming a regional council or a body that could help expand their resource sharing. There has been a heap of creative responses to some of the challenges that are facing local government. Community feedback on the report should indicate the favoured suggestions. The interesting thing about the amalgamation debate is that it has not focused on one aspect. Blind Freddy can see that amalgamations will not always deliver benefits. Indeed, even those who are pushing for amalgamations can see that. I hope I have answered some of Hon Robyn McSweeney’s questions and given her an insight into what I am thinking. Of course, in three months, when we have received community feedback, the government will make a formal response to the suggestions and we will move on from there. KULCHA - FUNDING BY OFFICE OF MULTICULTURAL INTERESTS 218. Hon GIZ WATSON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests: (1) Why has Multicultural Arts WA’s flagship organisation, Kulcha, lost funding? (2) Would it be accurate to say that the loss of $50 000 in funding to Kulcha is a loss of 15 per cent from the annual budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests? (3) If yes to (2), why is the Office of Multicultural Interests receiving only $375 000 a year when the state’s economy is so healthy? (4) Has the government lost its commitment to multiculturalism following the resignation of Dr Gallop? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
(1) Why has Multicultural Arts WA’s flagship organisation, Kulcha, lost funding? (2) Would it be accurate to say that the loss of $50 000 in funding to Kulcha is a loss of 15 per cent from the annual budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests? (3) If yes to (2), why is the Office of Multicultural Interests receiving only $375 000 a year when the state’s economy is so healthy? (4) Has the government lost its commitment to multiculturalism following the resignation of Dr Gallop? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
(2) Would it be accurate to say that the loss of $50 000 in funding to Kulcha is a loss of 15 per cent from the annual budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests? (3) If yes to (2), why is the Office of Multicultural Interests receiving only $375 000 a year when the state’s economy is so healthy? (4) Has the government lost its commitment to multiculturalism following the resignation of Dr Gallop? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
(3) If yes to (2), why is the Office of Multicultural Interests receiving only $375 000 a year when the state’s economy is so healthy? (4) Has the government lost its commitment to multiculturalism following the resignation of Dr Gallop? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
(4) Has the government lost its commitment to multiculturalism following the resignation of Dr Gallop? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
(1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
(2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
(3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
(4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
[See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
Hon JON FORD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. The great thing about the report is that it deals with a range of different scenarios that can assist local governments that are struggling to form more efficient bodies to get on with their business. I was particularly interested in that part of the report. There are already informal arrangements that create tight regional arrangements, such as the Pilbara Regional Council. The idea for the council was pushed along by a number of friends of mine and led to the creation of an effective lobby group with the state government. The council also dealt with prioritising from a lobbying perspective, particularly with road resources and other resources within that region. I have talked to members of the board, and they have told me that legislative impediments prevented them from making a much more formalised arrangement. I think that they were working towards a parish-type arrangement. That is what I took away from those discussions. The Northam council and other councils in the wheatbelt have arrangements with the Voluntary Regional Organisation of Councils. They would like to be given inducements and encouragement and financial assistance to strengthen those arrangements to deal with their local issues. Aside from the response from the press, the responses to the report have involved a heap of creative solutions, some of which exist within the legislation and some which would have to be expanded to deal with local governments’ individual issues. That is what I see when I look at that report. Of course, other solutions mentioned in the report include resource sharing. I spent Anzac Day at Tambellup. The Shire of Tambellup has entered into a resource-sharing arrangement with the Shire of Broomehill and they now share the same chief executive officer. Those councils talked to me about forming a regional council or a body that could help expand their resource sharing. There has been a heap of creative responses to some of the challenges that are facing local government. Community feedback on the report should indicate the favoured suggestions. The interesting thing about the amalgamation debate is that it has not focused on one aspect. Blind Freddy can see that amalgamations will not always deliver benefits. Indeed, even those who are pushing for amalgamations can see that. I hope I have answered some of Hon Robyn McSweeney’s questions and given her an insight into what I am thinking. Of course, in three months, when we have received community feedback, the government will make a formal response to the suggestions and we will move on from there. KULCHA - FUNDING BY OFFICE OF MULTICULTURAL INTERESTS 218. Hon GIZ WATSON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests: (1) Why has Multicultural Arts WA’s flagship organisation, Kulcha, lost funding? (2) Would it be accurate to say that the loss of $50 000 in funding to Kulcha is a loss of 15 per cent from the annual budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests? (3) If yes to (2), why is the Office of Multicultural Interests receiving only $375 000 a year when the state’s economy is so healthy? (4) Has the government lost its commitment to multiculturalism following the resignation of Dr Gallop? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
I thank the member for some notice of this question. The great thing about the report is that it deals with a range of different scenarios that can assist local governments that are struggling to form more efficient bodies to get on with their business. I was particularly interested in that part of the report. There are already informal arrangements that create tight regional arrangements, such as the Pilbara Regional Council. The idea for the council was pushed along by a number of friends of mine and led to the creation of an effective lobby group with the state government. The council also dealt with prioritising from a lobbying perspective, particularly with road resources and other resources within that region. I have talked to members of the board, and they have told me that legislative impediments prevented them from making a much more formalised arrangement. I think that they were working towards a parish-type arrangement. That is what I took away from those discussions. The Northam council and other councils in the wheatbelt have arrangements with the Voluntary Regional Organisation of Councils. They would like to be given inducements and encouragement and financial assistance to strengthen those arrangements to deal with their local issues. Aside from the response from the press, the responses to the report have involved a heap of creative solutions, some of which exist within the legislation and some which would have to be expanded to deal with local governments’ individual issues. That is what I see when I look at that report. Of course, other solutions mentioned in the report include resource sharing. I spent Anzac Day at Tambellup. The Shire of Tambellup has entered into a resource-sharing arrangement with the Shire of Broomehill and they now share the same chief executive officer. Those councils talked to me about forming a regional council or a body that could help expand their resource sharing. There has been a heap of creative responses to some of the challenges that are facing local government. Community feedback on the report should indicate the favoured suggestions. The interesting thing about the amalgamation debate is that it has not focused on one aspect. Blind Freddy can see that amalgamations will not always deliver benefits. Indeed, even those who are pushing for amalgamations can see that. I hope I have answered some of Hon Robyn McSweeney’s questions and given her an insight into what I am thinking. Of course, in three months, when we have received community feedback, the government will make a formal response to the suggestions and we will move on from there. KULCHA - FUNDING BY OFFICE OF MULTICULTURAL INTERESTS 218. Hon GIZ WATSON to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Interests: (1) Why has Multicultural Arts WA’s flagship organisation, Kulcha, lost funding? (2) Would it be accurate to say that the loss of $50 000 in funding to Kulcha is a loss of 15 per cent from the annual budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests? (3) If yes to (2), why is the Office of Multicultural Interests receiving only $375 000 a year when the state’s economy is so healthy? (4) Has the government lost its commitment to multiculturalism following the resignation of Dr Gallop? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
(1) Why has Multicultural Arts WA’s flagship organisation, Kulcha, lost funding? (2) Would it be accurate to say that the loss of $50 000 in funding to Kulcha is a loss of 15 per cent from the annual budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests? (3) If yes to (2), why is the Office of Multicultural Interests receiving only $375 000 a year when the state’s economy is so healthy? (4) Has the government lost its commitment to multiculturalism following the resignation of Dr Gallop? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
(2) Would it be accurate to say that the loss of $50 000 in funding to Kulcha is a loss of 15 per cent from the annual budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests? (3) If yes to (2), why is the Office of Multicultural Interests receiving only $375 000 a year when the state’s economy is so healthy? (4) Has the government lost its commitment to multiculturalism following the resignation of Dr Gallop? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
(3) If yes to (2), why is the Office of Multicultural Interests receiving only $375 000 a year when the state’s economy is so healthy? (4) Has the government lost its commitment to multiculturalism following the resignation of Dr Gallop? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
(4) Has the government lost its commitment to multiculturalism following the resignation of Dr Gallop? Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
Hon ADELE FARINA replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
(1) The Office of Multicultural Interests’ funding of Kulcha has totalled $250 000 over the past five years. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ grant agreement with Kulcha expires at the end of 2005-06. Since 2001, funding has been provided as is represented in the table for which I will, at the end of this answer, seek leave to incorporate into Hansard , as it is a bit difficult to read. The Office of Multicultural Interests provides funding to community organisations other than peak bodies for a specific period to enable them to attract corporate sponsorship to make the organisations more sustainable. Kulcha received funding from the Office of Multicultural Interests of $250 000 between 2001-02 and 2005-06 and is now well placed to seek corporate support. Continuing to fund well-established bodies such as Kulcha would, by necessity, exclude other emerging community groups that require funding to become sustainable. Kulcha remains a recipient of state government funding from other sources and is eligible to apply for grants from the Office of Multicultural Interests’ community grants program on an event-by-event basis. (2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
(2) No. The funds have been applied to another area and there has been no net loss to the budget of the Office of Multicultural Interests. The Office of Multicultural Interests’ cash budget for 2005-06 is $2.455 million, including a community grants program allocation of approximately $350 000. (3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
(3) Not applicable. (4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
(4) Absolutely not. I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
I table the answer and seek leave to have the table incorporated into Hansard . Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
Leave granted. [See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
[See paper 1479.] The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
The following material was incorporated - 2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
2001 $50,000 (One-year, with possibility of one year extension) 2002/03 $50,000 (Extension granted) 2003/04 $50,000 (Payments continued) 2004/05 $50,000 (New agreement, with possibility of one year extension) 2005/06 *$50,000 (Decision made in December 2005 that no further extensions would be made) TOTAL $250,000
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.