❓ A parliamentary question regarding complaints about the 2007 Western Australian Multicultural Community Service Awards. The Minister initially denied receiving complaints but later admitted that they had been received after the initial question.
AnsweredQoN 255Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN MULTICULTURAL COMMUNITY SERVICE AWARDS 2007
I refer to my question without notice asked on 28 March asking whether the minister had received complaints about the 2007 Western Australian Multicultural Community Service Awards, to which the minister answered no. (1) Has it subsequently been drawn to the minister’s attention that a complaint or complaints had indeed been received about how the 2007 awards were decided? (2) If not, has the minister asked her staff to check, as I suggested she do? (3) If a complaint has been received, why has the minister not advised the house of that information? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH
I refer to my question without notice asked on 28 March asking whether the minister had received complaints about the 2007 Western Australian Multicultural Community Service Awards, to which the minister answered no. (1) Has it subsequently been drawn to the minister’s attention that a complaint or complaints had indeed been received about how the 2007 awards were decided? (2) If not, has the minister asked her staff to check, as I suggested she do? (3) If a complaint has been received, why has the minister not advised the house of that information? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Certainly, I had not received that correspondence at the time the question was asked. From memory, there was no requirement for me to report subsequently to the house when the correspondence was received. This would set a very bad precedent in that people could ask for documentation that may or may not have been received and then require that that be tabled at any point after the event. I would have thought that a subsequent question would be in order. I might ask the member why he did not ask the subsequent question earlier than the two or three weeks it has taken him to follow up this matter.
(1) Has it subsequently been drawn to the minister’s attention that a complaint or complaints had indeed been received about how the 2007 awards were decided? (2) If not, has the minister asked her staff to check, as I suggested she do? (3) If a complaint has been received, why has the minister not advised the house of that information? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Certainly, I had not received that correspondence at the time the question was asked. From memory, there was no requirement for me to report subsequently to the house when the correspondence was received. This would set a very bad precedent in that people could ask for documentation that may or may not have been received and then require that that be tabled at any point after the event. I would have thought that a subsequent question would be in order. I might ask the member why he did not ask the subsequent question earlier than the two or three weeks it has taken him to follow up this matter.
(2) If not, has the minister asked her staff to check, as I suggested she do? (3) If a complaint has been received, why has the minister not advised the house of that information? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Certainly, I had not received that correspondence at the time the question was asked. From memory, there was no requirement for me to report subsequently to the house when the correspondence was received. This would set a very bad precedent in that people could ask for documentation that may or may not have been received and then require that that be tabled at any point after the event. I would have thought that a subsequent question would be in order. I might ask the member why he did not ask the subsequent question earlier than the two or three weeks it has taken him to follow up this matter.
(3) If a complaint has been received, why has the minister not advised the house of that information? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Certainly, I had not received that correspondence at the time the question was asked. From memory, there was no requirement for me to report subsequently to the house when the correspondence was received. This would set a very bad precedent in that people could ask for documentation that may or may not have been received and then require that that be tabled at any point after the event. I would have thought that a subsequent question would be in order. I might ask the member why he did not ask the subsequent question earlier than the two or three weeks it has taken him to follow up this matter.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Certainly, I had not received that correspondence at the time the question was asked. From memory, there was no requirement for me to report subsequently to the house when the correspondence was received. This would set a very bad precedent in that people could ask for documentation that may or may not have been received and then require that that be tabled at any point after the event. I would have thought that a subsequent question would be in order. I might ask the member why he did not ask the subsequent question earlier than the two or three weeks it has taken him to follow up this matter.
I thank the member for the question. (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Certainly, I had not received that correspondence at the time the question was asked. From memory, there was no requirement for me to report subsequently to the house when the correspondence was received. This would set a very bad precedent in that people could ask for documentation that may or may not have been received and then require that that be tabled at any point after the event. I would have thought that a subsequent question would be in order. I might ask the member why he did not ask the subsequent question earlier than the two or three weeks it has taken him to follow up this matter.
(1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Certainly, I had not received that correspondence at the time the question was asked. From memory, there was no requirement for me to report subsequently to the house when the correspondence was received. This would set a very bad precedent in that people could ask for documentation that may or may not have been received and then require that that be tabled at any point after the event. I would have thought that a subsequent question would be in order. I might ask the member why he did not ask the subsequent question earlier than the two or three weeks it has taken him to follow up this matter.
(2) Not applicable. (3) Certainly, I had not received that correspondence at the time the question was asked. From memory, there was no requirement for me to report subsequently to the house when the correspondence was received. This would set a very bad precedent in that people could ask for documentation that may or may not have been received and then require that that be tabled at any point after the event. I would have thought that a subsequent question would be in order. I might ask the member why he did not ask the subsequent question earlier than the two or three weeks it has taken him to follow up this matter.
(3) Certainly, I had not received that correspondence at the time the question was asked. From memory, there was no requirement for me to report subsequently to the house when the correspondence was received. This would set a very bad precedent in that people could ask for documentation that may or may not have been received and then require that that be tabled at any point after the event. I would have thought that a subsequent question would be in order. I might ask the member why he did not ask the subsequent question earlier than the two or three weeks it has taken him to follow up this matter.
(1) Has it subsequently been drawn to the minister’s attention that a complaint or complaints had indeed been received about how the 2007 awards were decided? (2) If not, has the minister asked her staff to check, as I suggested she do? (3) If a complaint has been received, why has the minister not advised the house of that information? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Certainly, I had not received that correspondence at the time the question was asked. From memory, there was no requirement for me to report subsequently to the house when the correspondence was received. This would set a very bad precedent in that people could ask for documentation that may or may not have been received and then require that that be tabled at any point after the event. I would have thought that a subsequent question would be in order. I might ask the member why he did not ask the subsequent question earlier than the two or three weeks it has taken him to follow up this matter.
(2) If not, has the minister asked her staff to check, as I suggested she do? (3) If a complaint has been received, why has the minister not advised the house of that information? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Certainly, I had not received that correspondence at the time the question was asked. From memory, there was no requirement for me to report subsequently to the house when the correspondence was received. This would set a very bad precedent in that people could ask for documentation that may or may not have been received and then require that that be tabled at any point after the event. I would have thought that a subsequent question would be in order. I might ask the member why he did not ask the subsequent question earlier than the two or three weeks it has taken him to follow up this matter.
(3) If a complaint has been received, why has the minister not advised the house of that information? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Certainly, I had not received that correspondence at the time the question was asked. From memory, there was no requirement for me to report subsequently to the house when the correspondence was received. This would set a very bad precedent in that people could ask for documentation that may or may not have been received and then require that that be tabled at any point after the event. I would have thought that a subsequent question would be in order. I might ask the member why he did not ask the subsequent question earlier than the two or three weeks it has taken him to follow up this matter.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for the question. (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Certainly, I had not received that correspondence at the time the question was asked. From memory, there was no requirement for me to report subsequently to the house when the correspondence was received. This would set a very bad precedent in that people could ask for documentation that may or may not have been received and then require that that be tabled at any point after the event. I would have thought that a subsequent question would be in order. I might ask the member why he did not ask the subsequent question earlier than the two or three weeks it has taken him to follow up this matter.
I thank the member for the question. (1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Certainly, I had not received that correspondence at the time the question was asked. From memory, there was no requirement for me to report subsequently to the house when the correspondence was received. This would set a very bad precedent in that people could ask for documentation that may or may not have been received and then require that that be tabled at any point after the event. I would have thought that a subsequent question would be in order. I might ask the member why he did not ask the subsequent question earlier than the two or three weeks it has taken him to follow up this matter.
(1) Yes. (2) Not applicable. (3) Certainly, I had not received that correspondence at the time the question was asked. From memory, there was no requirement for me to report subsequently to the house when the correspondence was received. This would set a very bad precedent in that people could ask for documentation that may or may not have been received and then require that that be tabled at any point after the event. I would have thought that a subsequent question would be in order. I might ask the member why he did not ask the subsequent question earlier than the two or three weeks it has taken him to follow up this matter.
(2) Not applicable. (3) Certainly, I had not received that correspondence at the time the question was asked. From memory, there was no requirement for me to report subsequently to the house when the correspondence was received. This would set a very bad precedent in that people could ask for documentation that may or may not have been received and then require that that be tabled at any point after the event. I would have thought that a subsequent question would be in order. I might ask the member why he did not ask the subsequent question earlier than the two or three weeks it has taken him to follow up this matter.
(3) Certainly, I had not received that correspondence at the time the question was asked. From memory, there was no requirement for me to report subsequently to the house when the correspondence was received. This would set a very bad precedent in that people could ask for documentation that may or may not have been received and then require that that be tabled at any point after the event. I would have thought that a subsequent question would be in order. I might ask the member why he did not ask the subsequent question earlier than the two or three weeks it has taken him to follow up this matter.
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.