❓ Opposition questions the Minister about $60 million in budget savings across several departments, seeking specific program cuts. The Minister deflects, highlighting opportunities in the north-west and criticising the previous government's spending.
AnsweredQoN 594Legislative Assembly
Asked
27 November 2001
Member
Portfolio
State Development; Tourism; and Small Business
QuestionView source ↗
Minister for State Development ; TOURISM; AND SMALL BUSINESS - $60 MILLION OF SAVINGS
I refer the minister to the $60 million worth of savings measures contained in this year’s budget within his department and agencies, including the Department of Industry and Technology, the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources, the Small Business Development Corporation and the WA Tourism Commission. Will the minister advise which specific programs and initiatives will be cut or abolished this year and over the next three years? Mr BROWN
I refer the minister to the $60 million worth of savings measures contained in this year’s budget within his department and agencies, including the Department of Industry and Technology, the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources, the Small Business Development Corporation and the WA Tourism Commission. Will the minister advise which specific programs and initiatives will be cut or abolished this year and over the next three years? Mr BROWN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Mitchell for the question. I like to be on top of my portfolio, which is why I can keep 112 programs in the back of my mind so I can provide information parrot-fashion! Mr Barron-Sullivan: Just name a couple. Mr BROWN: If the member showed some courtesy by giving some notice of that question, I might have provided that information. I will talk about some of the shifting priorities within government. First of all, members opposite would know about some of the fantastic opportunities for us in the north west of the State. These have come about as a consequence of a variety of circumstances and provide us with a window of opportunity. Mr Board: Where are the $60 million worth of savings? Mr BROWN: It is interesting that when I try to talk about the opportunities for the State, members opposite are not interested. All members opposite want to know is where are the so-called cuts. Members opposite are not interested in future employment and development; they are not interested in any of that. All members opposite want to know is where there have been some cuts. I am interested in the member’s reference to a cut in the tourism budget, because the tourism budget is greater than last year’s budget. The implication in the question that there has been a cut in the tourism budget is wrong. If members look at what was budgeted for tourism in the previous financial year compared with this financial year, they will see an increase. Some one-off adjustments occurred in 2000-01 that do not need to be repeated this year. Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr BROWN replied: I thank the member for Mitchell for the question. I like to be on top of my portfolio, which is why I can keep 112 programs in the back of my mind so I can provide information parrot-fashion! Mr Barron-Sullivan: Just name a couple. Mr BROWN: If the member showed some courtesy by giving some notice of that question, I might have provided that information. I will talk about some of the shifting priorities within government. First of all, members opposite would know about some of the fantastic opportunities for us in the north west of the State. These have come about as a consequence of a variety of circumstances and provide us with a window of opportunity. Mr Board: Where are the $60 million worth of savings? Mr BROWN: It is interesting that when I try to talk about the opportunities for the State, members opposite are not interested. All members opposite want to know is where are the so-called cuts. Members opposite are not interested in future employment and development; they are not interested in any of that. All members opposite want to know is where there have been some cuts. I am interested in the member’s reference to a cut in the tourism budget, because the tourism budget is greater than last year’s budget. The implication in the question that there has been a cut in the tourism budget is wrong. If members look at what was budgeted for tourism in the previous financial year compared with this financial year, they will see an increase. Some one-off adjustments occurred in 2000-01 that do not need to be repeated this year. Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
I thank the member for Mitchell for the question. I like to be on top of my portfolio, which is why I can keep 112 programs in the back of my mind so I can provide information parrot-fashion! Mr Barron-Sullivan: Just name a couple. Mr BROWN: If the member showed some courtesy by giving some notice of that question, I might have provided that information. I will talk about some of the shifting priorities within government. First of all, members opposite would know about some of the fantastic opportunities for us in the north west of the State. These have come about as a consequence of a variety of circumstances and provide us with a window of opportunity. Mr Board: Where are the $60 million worth of savings? Mr BROWN: It is interesting that when I try to talk about the opportunities for the State, members opposite are not interested. All members opposite want to know is where are the so-called cuts. Members opposite are not interested in future employment and development; they are not interested in any of that. All members opposite want to know is where there have been some cuts. I am interested in the member’s reference to a cut in the tourism budget, because the tourism budget is greater than last year’s budget. The implication in the question that there has been a cut in the tourism budget is wrong. If members look at what was budgeted for tourism in the previous financial year compared with this financial year, they will see an increase. Some one-off adjustments occurred in 2000-01 that do not need to be repeated this year. Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr Barron-Sullivan: Just name a couple. Mr BROWN: If the member showed some courtesy by giving some notice of that question, I might have provided that information. I will talk about some of the shifting priorities within government. First of all, members opposite would know about some of the fantastic opportunities for us in the north west of the State. These have come about as a consequence of a variety of circumstances and provide us with a window of opportunity. Mr Board: Where are the $60 million worth of savings? Mr BROWN: It is interesting that when I try to talk about the opportunities for the State, members opposite are not interested. All members opposite want to know is where are the so-called cuts. Members opposite are not interested in future employment and development; they are not interested in any of that. All members opposite want to know is where there have been some cuts. I am interested in the member’s reference to a cut in the tourism budget, because the tourism budget is greater than last year’s budget. The implication in the question that there has been a cut in the tourism budget is wrong. If members look at what was budgeted for tourism in the previous financial year compared with this financial year, they will see an increase. Some one-off adjustments occurred in 2000-01 that do not need to be repeated this year. Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr BROWN: If the member showed some courtesy by giving some notice of that question, I might have provided that information. I will talk about some of the shifting priorities within government. First of all, members opposite would know about some of the fantastic opportunities for us in the north west of the State. These have come about as a consequence of a variety of circumstances and provide us with a window of opportunity. Mr Board: Where are the $60 million worth of savings? Mr BROWN: It is interesting that when I try to talk about the opportunities for the State, members opposite are not interested. All members opposite want to know is where are the so-called cuts. Members opposite are not interested in future employment and development; they are not interested in any of that. All members opposite want to know is where there have been some cuts. I am interested in the member’s reference to a cut in the tourism budget, because the tourism budget is greater than last year’s budget. The implication in the question that there has been a cut in the tourism budget is wrong. If members look at what was budgeted for tourism in the previous financial year compared with this financial year, they will see an increase. Some one-off adjustments occurred in 2000-01 that do not need to be repeated this year. Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
I will talk about some of the shifting priorities within government. First of all, members opposite would know about some of the fantastic opportunities for us in the north west of the State. These have come about as a consequence of a variety of circumstances and provide us with a window of opportunity. Mr Board: Where are the $60 million worth of savings? Mr BROWN: It is interesting that when I try to talk about the opportunities for the State, members opposite are not interested. All members opposite want to know is where are the so-called cuts. Members opposite are not interested in future employment and development; they are not interested in any of that. All members opposite want to know is where there have been some cuts. I am interested in the member’s reference to a cut in the tourism budget, because the tourism budget is greater than last year’s budget. The implication in the question that there has been a cut in the tourism budget is wrong. If members look at what was budgeted for tourism in the previous financial year compared with this financial year, they will see an increase. Some one-off adjustments occurred in 2000-01 that do not need to be repeated this year. Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr Board: Where are the $60 million worth of savings? Mr BROWN: It is interesting that when I try to talk about the opportunities for the State, members opposite are not interested. All members opposite want to know is where are the so-called cuts. Members opposite are not interested in future employment and development; they are not interested in any of that. All members opposite want to know is where there have been some cuts. I am interested in the member’s reference to a cut in the tourism budget, because the tourism budget is greater than last year’s budget. The implication in the question that there has been a cut in the tourism budget is wrong. If members look at what was budgeted for tourism in the previous financial year compared with this financial year, they will see an increase. Some one-off adjustments occurred in 2000-01 that do not need to be repeated this year. Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr BROWN: It is interesting that when I try to talk about the opportunities for the State, members opposite are not interested. All members opposite want to know is where are the so-called cuts. Members opposite are not interested in future employment and development; they are not interested in any of that. All members opposite want to know is where there have been some cuts. I am interested in the member’s reference to a cut in the tourism budget, because the tourism budget is greater than last year’s budget. The implication in the question that there has been a cut in the tourism budget is wrong. If members look at what was budgeted for tourism in the previous financial year compared with this financial year, they will see an increase. Some one-off adjustments occurred in 2000-01 that do not need to be repeated this year. Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
I am interested in the member’s reference to a cut in the tourism budget, because the tourism budget is greater than last year’s budget. The implication in the question that there has been a cut in the tourism budget is wrong. If members look at what was budgeted for tourism in the previous financial year compared with this financial year, they will see an increase. Some one-off adjustments occurred in 2000-01 that do not need to be repeated this year. Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr BROWN replied: I thank the member for Mitchell for the question. I like to be on top of my portfolio, which is why I can keep 112 programs in the back of my mind so I can provide information parrot-fashion! Mr Barron-Sullivan: Just name a couple. Mr BROWN: If the member showed some courtesy by giving some notice of that question, I might have provided that information. I will talk about some of the shifting priorities within government. First of all, members opposite would know about some of the fantastic opportunities for us in the north west of the State. These have come about as a consequence of a variety of circumstances and provide us with a window of opportunity. Mr Board: Where are the $60 million worth of savings? Mr BROWN: It is interesting that when I try to talk about the opportunities for the State, members opposite are not interested. All members opposite want to know is where are the so-called cuts. Members opposite are not interested in future employment and development; they are not interested in any of that. All members opposite want to know is where there have been some cuts. I am interested in the member’s reference to a cut in the tourism budget, because the tourism budget is greater than last year’s budget. The implication in the question that there has been a cut in the tourism budget is wrong. If members look at what was budgeted for tourism in the previous financial year compared with this financial year, they will see an increase. Some one-off adjustments occurred in 2000-01 that do not need to be repeated this year. Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
I thank the member for Mitchell for the question. I like to be on top of my portfolio, which is why I can keep 112 programs in the back of my mind so I can provide information parrot-fashion! Mr Barron-Sullivan: Just name a couple. Mr BROWN: If the member showed some courtesy by giving some notice of that question, I might have provided that information. I will talk about some of the shifting priorities within government. First of all, members opposite would know about some of the fantastic opportunities for us in the north west of the State. These have come about as a consequence of a variety of circumstances and provide us with a window of opportunity. Mr Board: Where are the $60 million worth of savings? Mr BROWN: It is interesting that when I try to talk about the opportunities for the State, members opposite are not interested. All members opposite want to know is where are the so-called cuts. Members opposite are not interested in future employment and development; they are not interested in any of that. All members opposite want to know is where there have been some cuts. I am interested in the member’s reference to a cut in the tourism budget, because the tourism budget is greater than last year’s budget. The implication in the question that there has been a cut in the tourism budget is wrong. If members look at what was budgeted for tourism in the previous financial year compared with this financial year, they will see an increase. Some one-off adjustments occurred in 2000-01 that do not need to be repeated this year. Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr Barron-Sullivan: Just name a couple. Mr BROWN: If the member showed some courtesy by giving some notice of that question, I might have provided that information. I will talk about some of the shifting priorities within government. First of all, members opposite would know about some of the fantastic opportunities for us in the north west of the State. These have come about as a consequence of a variety of circumstances and provide us with a window of opportunity. Mr Board: Where are the $60 million worth of savings? Mr BROWN: It is interesting that when I try to talk about the opportunities for the State, members opposite are not interested. All members opposite want to know is where are the so-called cuts. Members opposite are not interested in future employment and development; they are not interested in any of that. All members opposite want to know is where there have been some cuts. I am interested in the member’s reference to a cut in the tourism budget, because the tourism budget is greater than last year’s budget. The implication in the question that there has been a cut in the tourism budget is wrong. If members look at what was budgeted for tourism in the previous financial year compared with this financial year, they will see an increase. Some one-off adjustments occurred in 2000-01 that do not need to be repeated this year. Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr BROWN: If the member showed some courtesy by giving some notice of that question, I might have provided that information. I will talk about some of the shifting priorities within government. First of all, members opposite would know about some of the fantastic opportunities for us in the north west of the State. These have come about as a consequence of a variety of circumstances and provide us with a window of opportunity. Mr Board: Where are the $60 million worth of savings? Mr BROWN: It is interesting that when I try to talk about the opportunities for the State, members opposite are not interested. All members opposite want to know is where are the so-called cuts. Members opposite are not interested in future employment and development; they are not interested in any of that. All members opposite want to know is where there have been some cuts. I am interested in the member’s reference to a cut in the tourism budget, because the tourism budget is greater than last year’s budget. The implication in the question that there has been a cut in the tourism budget is wrong. If members look at what was budgeted for tourism in the previous financial year compared with this financial year, they will see an increase. Some one-off adjustments occurred in 2000-01 that do not need to be repeated this year. Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
I will talk about some of the shifting priorities within government. First of all, members opposite would know about some of the fantastic opportunities for us in the north west of the State. These have come about as a consequence of a variety of circumstances and provide us with a window of opportunity. Mr Board: Where are the $60 million worth of savings? Mr BROWN: It is interesting that when I try to talk about the opportunities for the State, members opposite are not interested. All members opposite want to know is where are the so-called cuts. Members opposite are not interested in future employment and development; they are not interested in any of that. All members opposite want to know is where there have been some cuts. I am interested in the member’s reference to a cut in the tourism budget, because the tourism budget is greater than last year’s budget. The implication in the question that there has been a cut in the tourism budget is wrong. If members look at what was budgeted for tourism in the previous financial year compared with this financial year, they will see an increase. Some one-off adjustments occurred in 2000-01 that do not need to be repeated this year. Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr Board: Where are the $60 million worth of savings? Mr BROWN: It is interesting that when I try to talk about the opportunities for the State, members opposite are not interested. All members opposite want to know is where are the so-called cuts. Members opposite are not interested in future employment and development; they are not interested in any of that. All members opposite want to know is where there have been some cuts. I am interested in the member’s reference to a cut in the tourism budget, because the tourism budget is greater than last year’s budget. The implication in the question that there has been a cut in the tourism budget is wrong. If members look at what was budgeted for tourism in the previous financial year compared with this financial year, they will see an increase. Some one-off adjustments occurred in 2000-01 that do not need to be repeated this year. Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr BROWN: It is interesting that when I try to talk about the opportunities for the State, members opposite are not interested. All members opposite want to know is where are the so-called cuts. Members opposite are not interested in future employment and development; they are not interested in any of that. All members opposite want to know is where there have been some cuts. I am interested in the member’s reference to a cut in the tourism budget, because the tourism budget is greater than last year’s budget. The implication in the question that there has been a cut in the tourism budget is wrong. If members look at what was budgeted for tourism in the previous financial year compared with this financial year, they will see an increase. Some one-off adjustments occurred in 2000-01 that do not need to be repeated this year. Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
I am interested in the member’s reference to a cut in the tourism budget, because the tourism budget is greater than last year’s budget. The implication in the question that there has been a cut in the tourism budget is wrong. If members look at what was budgeted for tourism in the previous financial year compared with this financial year, they will see an increase. Some one-off adjustments occurred in 2000-01 that do not need to be repeated this year. Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr Barnett: Give us one or two off the top of your head. You said that you were on top of your portfolio. Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr BROWN: I am on top of my portfolio, but I am not falling for the three-card trick of giving figures and then finding that they are wrong. All I am saying is that if one looks at the total expenditure across these portfolios on capital infrastructure to improve the State’s economic development, one sees that we are putting in considerable dollars. Yes, there will be a review of the programs because some of them simply did not work. We will carry out a review of all of the programs. Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr Johnson: Which ones did not work? Tell us just one. Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr BROWN: A number of the programs did not work. We are carrying out a review of all the programs and we will announce the new programs in the New Year. When we do that we will develop the guidelines; they will be published, and members opposite will be able to have a good look at them. When that review is complete members opposite will be able to have a good look at it. I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
I am interested to see that the Opposition thinks that every one of the dollars it spent was well spent, and is prepared to stake its reputation on every single dollar that was spent over the term of the last Government. I am interested in that, because if we need some examples we might bring a few into Parliament. Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Dr Gallop: Let’s go dancing! Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
Mr BROWN: The Premier has just reminded me of the Global Dance Foundation fiasco. For those members who were not here, Global Dance was a fiasco in which the former Premier went dancing up the aisle with a person. No feasibility study was undertaken. When we asked the former Premier whether he had done a feasibility study on the proposal before he put money into it, the answer was no. When we asked whether the former Premier had spoken to the arts industry or the dance industry, the answer was no. We saw how well the present Opposition dealt with things. I will look at this issue carefully and consider the Opposition’s performance in government, and I will bring back a few examples. The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
The Opposition is now saying that every decision it made to provide financial assistance was correct. Let us talk about the financial assistance that the former Government gave to the meat industry. Was that a good decision for the meat industry? Members opposite will not answer. They are not prepared to stand by the decisions they made about the meat industry. That is because it was the greatest lot of rorting one could ever hope to see. In fact, in its 2000-01 budget the former Government had to put in a million and a half dollars to shut people up. Point of Order Mr DAY: Mr Speaker, the minister has a responsibility to address the question that was asked. The Opposition has shown a great degree of latitude. I think it is appropriate that you direct him to conclude his answer or answer the question. The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
The SPEAKER: I think the minister was led astray by interjections. I am sure that he is about to complete his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr BROWN: I am glad that I got on to the meat industry issue, because I want to inform those opposite that the Government will not put in the $3.4 million which the previous Government sunk in and which distorted the meat market. This Government will not put in another $1.5 million, which the previous Government put in and which caused other issues to arise. If members opposite want to know what is the cut in the meat industry, that is it.
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.