❓ Opposition questions the Premier's decision not to sack the Minister for Finance after a conflict of interest was identified. The Premier defends the Minister, citing lack of ill intent and comparing the situation to past Labor scandals.
AnsweredQoN 28Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
MINISTER
FOR TRANSPORT — WELD CLUB MEETING
28. Mr M. McGOWAN to the
Premier:
I refer to the former Minister for Finance's meeting
at the Weld Club with Mr Alan Ariti, members of his staff and his relative who
worked for the Department of Finance. Why was the minister not sacked from the
cabinet when Mr Peter Conran's report cited this as an actual conflict
of interest and a breach of the Premier's own ministerial code of
conduct?
FOR TRANSPORT — WELD CLUB MEETING
28. Mr M. McGOWAN to the
Premier:
I refer to the former Minister for Finance's meeting
at the Weld Club with Mr Alan Ariti, members of his staff and his relative who
worked for the Department of Finance. Why was the minister not sacked from the
cabinet when Mr Peter Conran's report cited this as an actual conflict
of interest and a breach of the Premier's own ministerial code of
conduct?
AnswerView source ↗
As I said publicly at the time, it was a poor decision to do
that—a new minister—and a mistake. Other issues have been
raised about declarations and the like, and the minister has assured me that he
has either disposed of any assets or is in the process of doing so, and I
accept that. However, was there any ill intent? Was there any attempt at
personal gain? No, there was not. Much as members opposite might want to try to
slur, it was a difficult situation. The minister had extensive and complex
financial interests, mainly, as I understand, relating to family trusts and the
like.
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Members! A question has been asked and I want to hear the answer.
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : It was a poor decision—lack of good judgement. The
minister accepts that; it is a learning experience. But where was the intent to
profit? Where was the intent to deceive? It was not there at all. Compare that
with the conga line of ministers under Labor going to the Corruption and Crime
Commission. That is the difference, and that is why a very good minister is
still there.
that—a new minister—and a mistake. Other issues have been
raised about declarations and the like, and the minister has assured me that he
has either disposed of any assets or is in the process of doing so, and I
accept that. However, was there any ill intent? Was there any attempt at
personal gain? No, there was not. Much as members opposite might want to try to
slur, it was a difficult situation. The minister had extensive and complex
financial interests, mainly, as I understand, relating to family trusts and the
like.
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Members! A question has been asked and I want to hear the answer.
Mr
C.J. BARNETT : It was a poor decision—lack of good judgement. The
minister accepts that; it is a learning experience. But where was the intent to
profit? Where was the intent to deceive? It was not there at all. Compare that
with the conga line of ministers under Labor going to the Corruption and Crime
Commission. That is the difference, and that is why a very good minister is
still there.
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.