❓ The Premier defends the Minister for Health against accusations related to the Mickelberg case, dismissing the Opposition's claims as politically motivated and highlighting their inconsistency regarding ministerial accountability.
AnsweredQoN 1081Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Premier to revelations regarding the July 1982 interview of Peter Mickelberg. Given that the now Minister for Health - (a) was in charge of the Belmont Police Station at the time of the interview; (b) was, aside from Hancock and Lewandowski, the only other officer present at any time during the interview and was required to give evidence; (c) has been accused of ignoring Peter Mickelberg’s complaint that he had been stripped and bashed; (d) gave crucial testimony in 1998 to support the evidence now said in a sworn affidavit to be untrue; and (e) has misled the people of Western Australia about the extent of his involvement in the quashing of the final Mickelberg appeal will the Premier stand him aside until these matters are satisfactorily resolved? Dr GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
The Opposition’s standards are being displayed for all to see. The Minister for Health has my support. Absolutely no evidence has been produced against him. As I said, the Leader of the Opposition is pinning his arguments on what can be described only as twisted logic. He is pursuing a base political objective, rather than a general political objective. It is obvious that the Opposition has focused on the Minister for Health because of his position as a member of the Labor Government. It will be interesting to see how this issue develops. I find it fascinating to refer to Western Australian political history and the debates that occurred prior to the Wanneroo Inc royal commission. At the time, the Labor Party said that, because specific accusations had been made about a minister’s role in Wanneroo, she should stand aside. She did not; she accepted her responsibility, appeared before the royal commission, argued her case in Parliament and the royal commission handed down its findings. Specific allegations were made. It is ironic that the Leader of the Opposition now acknowledges that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. I remind the leader that he opposed a motion designed to achieve that end in this Parliament. The case put by the then Opposition was that Hon Doug Shave should have accepted responsibility for what was going on within his department. In other words, it was a traditional case of maladministration for which the minister should have accepted responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition now says that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. A direct accusation was made about a minister’s involvement in a very nasty affair relating to a political faction behaving corruptly in Wanneroo. Of course, the minister did not stand aside. She gave evidence to the royal commission, which handed down its decision, and we saw what happened. The Leader of the Opposition is all over the place. He was all over the place when in government and he is all over the place today with the logic that he is applying to this issue. I remind members of the facts of this matter. In all of the discussion about the so-called Mickelberg affair, from 1982 until this year, the name Bob Kucera has never been mentioned. There have never been any accusations about him. The Mickelbergs did not make any accusations about him in the courts when they spoke about corrupt police officers. The Lewandowski affidavit, which was the catalyst for this debate, contains no mention of the Minister for Health. It is clear: the Opposition is determined to pursue a particular course. It has sown the seeds for this strategy and the Leader of the Opposition has attached his reputation to it. He has decided to do that rather than to debate the very important issues that have been raised by the affidavit about Western Australia and how it operates. What has the Leader of the Opposition focused on? He has focused on the Minister for Health. I will conclude with what I said yesterday. The most significant feature of this debate is that the Labor Government has established a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition opposes that royal commission. That tells us everything about him. We do not need to know anything more about the attitudes of members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House. This Government has established the royal commission and it is available to look into these matters, and the Opposition says it is a waste of money.
(b) was, aside from Hancock and Lewandowski, the only other officer present at any time during the interview and was required to give evidence; (c) has been accused of ignoring Peter Mickelberg’s complaint that he had been stripped and bashed; (d) gave crucial testimony in 1998 to support the evidence now said in a sworn affidavit to be untrue; and (e) has misled the people of Western Australia about the extent of his involvement in the quashing of the final Mickelberg appeal
(c) has been accused of ignoring Peter Mickelberg’s complaint that he had been stripped and bashed; (d) gave crucial testimony in 1998 to support the evidence now said in a sworn affidavit to be untrue; and (e) has misled the people of Western Australia about the extent of his involvement in the quashing of the final Mickelberg appeal
(d) gave crucial testimony in 1998 to support the evidence now said in a sworn affidavit to be untrue; and (e) has misled the people of Western Australia about the extent of his involvement in the quashing of the final Mickelberg appeal
(e) has misled the people of Western Australia about the extent of his involvement in the quashing of the final Mickelberg appeal
Dr GALLOP replied: The Opposition’s standards are being displayed for all to see. The Minister for Health has my support. Absolutely no evidence has been produced against him. As I said, the Leader of the Opposition is pinning his arguments on what can be described only as twisted logic. He is pursuing a base political objective, rather than a general political objective. It is obvious that the Opposition has focused on the Minister for Health because of his position as a member of the Labor Government. It will be interesting to see how this issue develops. I find it fascinating to refer to Western Australian political history and the debates that occurred prior to the Wanneroo Inc royal commission. At the time, the Labor Party said that, because specific accusations had been made about a minister’s role in Wanneroo, she should stand aside. She did not; she accepted her responsibility, appeared before the royal commission, argued her case in Parliament and the royal commission handed down its findings. Specific allegations were made. It is ironic that the Leader of the Opposition now acknowledges that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. I remind the leader that he opposed a motion designed to achieve that end in this Parliament. The case put by the then Opposition was that Hon Doug Shave should have accepted responsibility for what was going on within his department. In other words, it was a traditional case of maladministration for which the minister should have accepted responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition now says that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. A direct accusation was made about a minister’s involvement in a very nasty affair relating to a political faction behaving corruptly in Wanneroo. Of course, the minister did not stand aside. She gave evidence to the royal commission, which handed down its decision, and we saw what happened. The Leader of the Opposition is all over the place. He was all over the place when in government and he is all over the place today with the logic that he is applying to this issue. I remind members of the facts of this matter. In all of the discussion about the so-called Mickelberg affair, from 1982 until this year, the name Bob Kucera has never been mentioned. There have never been any accusations about him. The Mickelbergs did not make any accusations about him in the courts when they spoke about corrupt police officers. The Lewandowski affidavit, which was the catalyst for this debate, contains no mention of the Minister for Health. It is clear: the Opposition is determined to pursue a particular course. It has sown the seeds for this strategy and the Leader of the Opposition has attached his reputation to it. He has decided to do that rather than to debate the very important issues that have been raised by the affidavit about Western Australia and how it operates. What has the Leader of the Opposition focused on? He has focused on the Minister for Health. I will conclude with what I said yesterday. The most significant feature of this debate is that the Labor Government has established a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition opposes that royal commission. That tells us everything about him. We do not need to know anything more about the attitudes of members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House. This Government has established the royal commission and it is available to look into these matters, and the Opposition says it is a waste of money.
The Opposition’s standards are being displayed for all to see. The Minister for Health has my support. Absolutely no evidence has been produced against him. As I said, the Leader of the Opposition is pinning his arguments on what can be described only as twisted logic. He is pursuing a base political objective, rather than a general political objective. It is obvious that the Opposition has focused on the Minister for Health because of his position as a member of the Labor Government. It will be interesting to see how this issue develops. I find it fascinating to refer to Western Australian political history and the debates that occurred prior to the Wanneroo Inc royal commission. At the time, the Labor Party said that, because specific accusations had been made about a minister’s role in Wanneroo, she should stand aside. She did not; she accepted her responsibility, appeared before the royal commission, argued her case in Parliament and the royal commission handed down its findings. Specific allegations were made. It is ironic that the Leader of the Opposition now acknowledges that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. I remind the leader that he opposed a motion designed to achieve that end in this Parliament. The case put by the then Opposition was that Hon Doug Shave should have accepted responsibility for what was going on within his department. In other words, it was a traditional case of maladministration for which the minister should have accepted responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition now says that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. A direct accusation was made about a minister’s involvement in a very nasty affair relating to a political faction behaving corruptly in Wanneroo. Of course, the minister did not stand aside. She gave evidence to the royal commission, which handed down its decision, and we saw what happened. The Leader of the Opposition is all over the place. He was all over the place when in government and he is all over the place today with the logic that he is applying to this issue. I remind members of the facts of this matter. In all of the discussion about the so-called Mickelberg affair, from 1982 until this year, the name Bob Kucera has never been mentioned. There have never been any accusations about him. The Mickelbergs did not make any accusations about him in the courts when they spoke about corrupt police officers. The Lewandowski affidavit, which was the catalyst for this debate, contains no mention of the Minister for Health. It is clear: the Opposition is determined to pursue a particular course. It has sown the seeds for this strategy and the Leader of the Opposition has attached his reputation to it. He has decided to do that rather than to debate the very important issues that have been raised by the affidavit about Western Australia and how it operates. What has the Leader of the Opposition focused on? He has focused on the Minister for Health. I will conclude with what I said yesterday. The most significant feature of this debate is that the Labor Government has established a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition opposes that royal commission. That tells us everything about him. We do not need to know anything more about the attitudes of members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House. This Government has established the royal commission and it is available to look into these matters, and the Opposition says it is a waste of money.
It will be interesting to see how this issue develops. I find it fascinating to refer to Western Australian political history and the debates that occurred prior to the Wanneroo Inc royal commission. At the time, the Labor Party said that, because specific accusations had been made about a minister’s role in Wanneroo, she should stand aside. She did not; she accepted her responsibility, appeared before the royal commission, argued her case in Parliament and the royal commission handed down its findings. Specific allegations were made. It is ironic that the Leader of the Opposition now acknowledges that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. I remind the leader that he opposed a motion designed to achieve that end in this Parliament. The case put by the then Opposition was that Hon Doug Shave should have accepted responsibility for what was going on within his department. In other words, it was a traditional case of maladministration for which the minister should have accepted responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition now says that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. A direct accusation was made about a minister’s involvement in a very nasty affair relating to a political faction behaving corruptly in Wanneroo. Of course, the minister did not stand aside. She gave evidence to the royal commission, which handed down its decision, and we saw what happened. The Leader of the Opposition is all over the place. He was all over the place when in government and he is all over the place today with the logic that he is applying to this issue. I remind members of the facts of this matter. In all of the discussion about the so-called Mickelberg affair, from 1982 until this year, the name Bob Kucera has never been mentioned. There have never been any accusations about him. The Mickelbergs did not make any accusations about him in the courts when they spoke about corrupt police officers. The Lewandowski affidavit, which was the catalyst for this debate, contains no mention of the Minister for Health. It is clear: the Opposition is determined to pursue a particular course. It has sown the seeds for this strategy and the Leader of the Opposition has attached his reputation to it. He has decided to do that rather than to debate the very important issues that have been raised by the affidavit about Western Australia and how it operates. What has the Leader of the Opposition focused on? He has focused on the Minister for Health. I will conclude with what I said yesterday. The most significant feature of this debate is that the Labor Government has established a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition opposes that royal commission. That tells us everything about him. We do not need to know anything more about the attitudes of members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House. This Government has established the royal commission and it is available to look into these matters, and the Opposition says it is a waste of money.
It is ironic that the Leader of the Opposition now acknowledges that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. I remind the leader that he opposed a motion designed to achieve that end in this Parliament. The case put by the then Opposition was that Hon Doug Shave should have accepted responsibility for what was going on within his department. In other words, it was a traditional case of maladministration for which the minister should have accepted responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition now says that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. A direct accusation was made about a minister’s involvement in a very nasty affair relating to a political faction behaving corruptly in Wanneroo. Of course, the minister did not stand aside. She gave evidence to the royal commission, which handed down its decision, and we saw what happened. The Leader of the Opposition is all over the place. He was all over the place when in government and he is all over the place today with the logic that he is applying to this issue. I remind members of the facts of this matter. In all of the discussion about the so-called Mickelberg affair, from 1982 until this year, the name Bob Kucera has never been mentioned. There have never been any accusations about him. The Mickelbergs did not make any accusations about him in the courts when they spoke about corrupt police officers. The Lewandowski affidavit, which was the catalyst for this debate, contains no mention of the Minister for Health. It is clear: the Opposition is determined to pursue a particular course. It has sown the seeds for this strategy and the Leader of the Opposition has attached his reputation to it. He has decided to do that rather than to debate the very important issues that have been raised by the affidavit about Western Australia and how it operates. What has the Leader of the Opposition focused on? He has focused on the Minister for Health. I will conclude with what I said yesterday. The most significant feature of this debate is that the Labor Government has established a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition opposes that royal commission. That tells us everything about him. We do not need to know anything more about the attitudes of members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House. This Government has established the royal commission and it is available to look into these matters, and the Opposition says it is a waste of money.
I remind members of the facts of this matter. In all of the discussion about the so-called Mickelberg affair, from 1982 until this year, the name Bob Kucera has never been mentioned. There have never been any accusations about him. The Mickelbergs did not make any accusations about him in the courts when they spoke about corrupt police officers. The Lewandowski affidavit, which was the catalyst for this debate, contains no mention of the Minister for Health. It is clear: the Opposition is determined to pursue a particular course. It has sown the seeds for this strategy and the Leader of the Opposition has attached his reputation to it. He has decided to do that rather than to debate the very important issues that have been raised by the affidavit about Western Australia and how it operates. What has the Leader of the Opposition focused on? He has focused on the Minister for Health. I will conclude with what I said yesterday. The most significant feature of this debate is that the Labor Government has established a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition opposes that royal commission. That tells us everything about him. We do not need to know anything more about the attitudes of members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House. This Government has established the royal commission and it is available to look into these matters, and the Opposition says it is a waste of money.
I will conclude with what I said yesterday. The most significant feature of this debate is that the Labor Government has established a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition opposes that royal commission. That tells us everything about him. We do not need to know anything more about the attitudes of members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House. This Government has established the royal commission and it is available to look into these matters, and the Opposition says it is a waste of money.
(b) was, aside from Hancock and Lewandowski, the only other officer present at any time during the interview and was required to give evidence; (c) has been accused of ignoring Peter Mickelberg’s complaint that he had been stripped and bashed; (d) gave crucial testimony in 1998 to support the evidence now said in a sworn affidavit to be untrue; and (e) has misled the people of Western Australia about the extent of his involvement in the quashing of the final Mickelberg appeal
(c) has been accused of ignoring Peter Mickelberg’s complaint that he had been stripped and bashed; (d) gave crucial testimony in 1998 to support the evidence now said in a sworn affidavit to be untrue; and (e) has misled the people of Western Australia about the extent of his involvement in the quashing of the final Mickelberg appeal
(d) gave crucial testimony in 1998 to support the evidence now said in a sworn affidavit to be untrue; and (e) has misled the people of Western Australia about the extent of his involvement in the quashing of the final Mickelberg appeal
(e) has misled the people of Western Australia about the extent of his involvement in the quashing of the final Mickelberg appeal
Dr GALLOP replied: The Opposition’s standards are being displayed for all to see. The Minister for Health has my support. Absolutely no evidence has been produced against him. As I said, the Leader of the Opposition is pinning his arguments on what can be described only as twisted logic. He is pursuing a base political objective, rather than a general political objective. It is obvious that the Opposition has focused on the Minister for Health because of his position as a member of the Labor Government. It will be interesting to see how this issue develops. I find it fascinating to refer to Western Australian political history and the debates that occurred prior to the Wanneroo Inc royal commission. At the time, the Labor Party said that, because specific accusations had been made about a minister’s role in Wanneroo, she should stand aside. She did not; she accepted her responsibility, appeared before the royal commission, argued her case in Parliament and the royal commission handed down its findings. Specific allegations were made. It is ironic that the Leader of the Opposition now acknowledges that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. I remind the leader that he opposed a motion designed to achieve that end in this Parliament. The case put by the then Opposition was that Hon Doug Shave should have accepted responsibility for what was going on within his department. In other words, it was a traditional case of maladministration for which the minister should have accepted responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition now says that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. A direct accusation was made about a minister’s involvement in a very nasty affair relating to a political faction behaving corruptly in Wanneroo. Of course, the minister did not stand aside. She gave evidence to the royal commission, which handed down its decision, and we saw what happened. The Leader of the Opposition is all over the place. He was all over the place when in government and he is all over the place today with the logic that he is applying to this issue. I remind members of the facts of this matter. In all of the discussion about the so-called Mickelberg affair, from 1982 until this year, the name Bob Kucera has never been mentioned. There have never been any accusations about him. The Mickelbergs did not make any accusations about him in the courts when they spoke about corrupt police officers. The Lewandowski affidavit, which was the catalyst for this debate, contains no mention of the Minister for Health. It is clear: the Opposition is determined to pursue a particular course. It has sown the seeds for this strategy and the Leader of the Opposition has attached his reputation to it. He has decided to do that rather than to debate the very important issues that have been raised by the affidavit about Western Australia and how it operates. What has the Leader of the Opposition focused on? He has focused on the Minister for Health. I will conclude with what I said yesterday. The most significant feature of this debate is that the Labor Government has established a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition opposes that royal commission. That tells us everything about him. We do not need to know anything more about the attitudes of members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House. This Government has established the royal commission and it is available to look into these matters, and the Opposition says it is a waste of money.
The Opposition’s standards are being displayed for all to see. The Minister for Health has my support. Absolutely no evidence has been produced against him. As I said, the Leader of the Opposition is pinning his arguments on what can be described only as twisted logic. He is pursuing a base political objective, rather than a general political objective. It is obvious that the Opposition has focused on the Minister for Health because of his position as a member of the Labor Government. It will be interesting to see how this issue develops. I find it fascinating to refer to Western Australian political history and the debates that occurred prior to the Wanneroo Inc royal commission. At the time, the Labor Party said that, because specific accusations had been made about a minister’s role in Wanneroo, she should stand aside. She did not; she accepted her responsibility, appeared before the royal commission, argued her case in Parliament and the royal commission handed down its findings. Specific allegations were made. It is ironic that the Leader of the Opposition now acknowledges that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. I remind the leader that he opposed a motion designed to achieve that end in this Parliament. The case put by the then Opposition was that Hon Doug Shave should have accepted responsibility for what was going on within his department. In other words, it was a traditional case of maladministration for which the minister should have accepted responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition now says that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. A direct accusation was made about a minister’s involvement in a very nasty affair relating to a political faction behaving corruptly in Wanneroo. Of course, the minister did not stand aside. She gave evidence to the royal commission, which handed down its decision, and we saw what happened. The Leader of the Opposition is all over the place. He was all over the place when in government and he is all over the place today with the logic that he is applying to this issue. I remind members of the facts of this matter. In all of the discussion about the so-called Mickelberg affair, from 1982 until this year, the name Bob Kucera has never been mentioned. There have never been any accusations about him. The Mickelbergs did not make any accusations about him in the courts when they spoke about corrupt police officers. The Lewandowski affidavit, which was the catalyst for this debate, contains no mention of the Minister for Health. It is clear: the Opposition is determined to pursue a particular course. It has sown the seeds for this strategy and the Leader of the Opposition has attached his reputation to it. He has decided to do that rather than to debate the very important issues that have been raised by the affidavit about Western Australia and how it operates. What has the Leader of the Opposition focused on? He has focused on the Minister for Health. I will conclude with what I said yesterday. The most significant feature of this debate is that the Labor Government has established a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition opposes that royal commission. That tells us everything about him. We do not need to know anything more about the attitudes of members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House. This Government has established the royal commission and it is available to look into these matters, and the Opposition says it is a waste of money.
It will be interesting to see how this issue develops. I find it fascinating to refer to Western Australian political history and the debates that occurred prior to the Wanneroo Inc royal commission. At the time, the Labor Party said that, because specific accusations had been made about a minister’s role in Wanneroo, she should stand aside. She did not; she accepted her responsibility, appeared before the royal commission, argued her case in Parliament and the royal commission handed down its findings. Specific allegations were made. It is ironic that the Leader of the Opposition now acknowledges that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. I remind the leader that he opposed a motion designed to achieve that end in this Parliament. The case put by the then Opposition was that Hon Doug Shave should have accepted responsibility for what was going on within his department. In other words, it was a traditional case of maladministration for which the minister should have accepted responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition now says that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. A direct accusation was made about a minister’s involvement in a very nasty affair relating to a political faction behaving corruptly in Wanneroo. Of course, the minister did not stand aside. She gave evidence to the royal commission, which handed down its decision, and we saw what happened. The Leader of the Opposition is all over the place. He was all over the place when in government and he is all over the place today with the logic that he is applying to this issue. I remind members of the facts of this matter. In all of the discussion about the so-called Mickelberg affair, from 1982 until this year, the name Bob Kucera has never been mentioned. There have never been any accusations about him. The Mickelbergs did not make any accusations about him in the courts when they spoke about corrupt police officers. The Lewandowski affidavit, which was the catalyst for this debate, contains no mention of the Minister for Health. It is clear: the Opposition is determined to pursue a particular course. It has sown the seeds for this strategy and the Leader of the Opposition has attached his reputation to it. He has decided to do that rather than to debate the very important issues that have been raised by the affidavit about Western Australia and how it operates. What has the Leader of the Opposition focused on? He has focused on the Minister for Health. I will conclude with what I said yesterday. The most significant feature of this debate is that the Labor Government has established a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition opposes that royal commission. That tells us everything about him. We do not need to know anything more about the attitudes of members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House. This Government has established the royal commission and it is available to look into these matters, and the Opposition says it is a waste of money.
It is ironic that the Leader of the Opposition now acknowledges that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. I remind the leader that he opposed a motion designed to achieve that end in this Parliament. The case put by the then Opposition was that Hon Doug Shave should have accepted responsibility for what was going on within his department. In other words, it was a traditional case of maladministration for which the minister should have accepted responsibility. The Leader of the Opposition now says that Hon Doug Shave should have stepped aside. A direct accusation was made about a minister’s involvement in a very nasty affair relating to a political faction behaving corruptly in Wanneroo. Of course, the minister did not stand aside. She gave evidence to the royal commission, which handed down its decision, and we saw what happened. The Leader of the Opposition is all over the place. He was all over the place when in government and he is all over the place today with the logic that he is applying to this issue. I remind members of the facts of this matter. In all of the discussion about the so-called Mickelberg affair, from 1982 until this year, the name Bob Kucera has never been mentioned. There have never been any accusations about him. The Mickelbergs did not make any accusations about him in the courts when they spoke about corrupt police officers. The Lewandowski affidavit, which was the catalyst for this debate, contains no mention of the Minister for Health. It is clear: the Opposition is determined to pursue a particular course. It has sown the seeds for this strategy and the Leader of the Opposition has attached his reputation to it. He has decided to do that rather than to debate the very important issues that have been raised by the affidavit about Western Australia and how it operates. What has the Leader of the Opposition focused on? He has focused on the Minister for Health. I will conclude with what I said yesterday. The most significant feature of this debate is that the Labor Government has established a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition opposes that royal commission. That tells us everything about him. We do not need to know anything more about the attitudes of members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House. This Government has established the royal commission and it is available to look into these matters, and the Opposition says it is a waste of money.
I remind members of the facts of this matter. In all of the discussion about the so-called Mickelberg affair, from 1982 until this year, the name Bob Kucera has never been mentioned. There have never been any accusations about him. The Mickelbergs did not make any accusations about him in the courts when they spoke about corrupt police officers. The Lewandowski affidavit, which was the catalyst for this debate, contains no mention of the Minister for Health. It is clear: the Opposition is determined to pursue a particular course. It has sown the seeds for this strategy and the Leader of the Opposition has attached his reputation to it. He has decided to do that rather than to debate the very important issues that have been raised by the affidavit about Western Australia and how it operates. What has the Leader of the Opposition focused on? He has focused on the Minister for Health. I will conclude with what I said yesterday. The most significant feature of this debate is that the Labor Government has established a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition opposes that royal commission. That tells us everything about him. We do not need to know anything more about the attitudes of members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House. This Government has established the royal commission and it is available to look into these matters, and the Opposition says it is a waste of money.
I will conclude with what I said yesterday. The most significant feature of this debate is that the Labor Government has established a royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition opposes that royal commission. That tells us everything about him. We do not need to know anything more about the attitudes of members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House. This Government has established the royal commission and it is available to look into these matters, and the Opposition says it is a waste of money.
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.