❓ A member of parliament questions the accuracy of a taxpayer-funded advertisement regarding police recruitment and wage claims. The Minister's response deflects blame to the previous government before addressing the specific points.
AnsweredQoN 1043Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to her statement in this House yesterday that the information contained in yesterday’s $4 000 taxpayer-funded newspaper advertisement was accurate and factual. (1) Did the minister, in her capacity as Minister for Police, approve the advertisement and verify its contents before it was lodged for publication? (2) Is the minister aware that far from making progress on Labor’s promise to recruit 250 additional police officers, as the advertisement claims, this Government has in fact only recruited 38 additional police officers since the beginning of its first full financial year? (3) Is the minister aware that rather than costing $100 million, as the advertisement claims, the WA Police Union wage claim would cost the Government an additional $30 million? (4) Is the minister aware that for all constables to progress to a salary of $59 000, as the advertisement claims, the constables would need to have served for 15 years? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(4) This is pretty amazing, is it not? Here we have again a whole lot of misinformation coming from the people opposite. They should reflect on what they said they would do for police officers for years and never did. Every year for eight long years they said that a Liberal Government would give police officers occupational health and safety coverage. In eight years they never even drafted the legislation. Not one dollar was allocated and not one line of legislation was drafted. They said that they thought that police officers, like other workers, should have a right of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. Did they give them one? No, they did not. It was up to us to put the legislation through. Police officers in this State had been asking for those two things for decades. For eight years the previous Government said that it would do it and for eight years it did not deliver. Now all we hear from them is nonsense. Where is the Opposition’s police spokesman this week? Where are his priorities? He has not been to the Parliament this week All he does is go on radio and talk a lot of nonsense; a little like the nonsense we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this week. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Why don’t you answer the question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member does not like what I am saying, but I am afraid she will have to hear it because I am outlining the facts. The facts of the matter are that we cannot believe the people opposite. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
(1) Did the minister, in her capacity as Minister for Police, approve the advertisement and verify its contents before it was lodged for publication? (2) Is the minister aware that far from making progress on Labor’s promise to recruit 250 additional police officers, as the advertisement claims, this Government has in fact only recruited 38 additional police officers since the beginning of its first full financial year? (3) Is the minister aware that rather than costing $100 million, as the advertisement claims, the WA Police Union wage claim would cost the Government an additional $30 million? (4) Is the minister aware that for all constables to progress to a salary of $59 000, as the advertisement claims, the constables would need to have served for 15 years? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) This is pretty amazing, is it not? Here we have again a whole lot of misinformation coming from the people opposite. They should reflect on what they said they would do for police officers for years and never did. Every year for eight long years they said that a Liberal Government would give police officers occupational health and safety coverage. In eight years they never even drafted the legislation. Not one dollar was allocated and not one line of legislation was drafted. They said that they thought that police officers, like other workers, should have a right of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. Did they give them one? No, they did not. It was up to us to put the legislation through. Police officers in this State had been asking for those two things for decades. For eight years the previous Government said that it would do it and for eight years it did not deliver. Now all we hear from them is nonsense. Where is the Opposition’s police spokesman this week? Where are his priorities? He has not been to the Parliament this week All he does is go on radio and talk a lot of nonsense; a little like the nonsense we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this week. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Why don’t you answer the question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member does not like what I am saying, but I am afraid she will have to hear it because I am outlining the facts. The facts of the matter are that we cannot believe the people opposite. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
(2) Is the minister aware that far from making progress on Labor’s promise to recruit 250 additional police officers, as the advertisement claims, this Government has in fact only recruited 38 additional police officers since the beginning of its first full financial year? (3) Is the minister aware that rather than costing $100 million, as the advertisement claims, the WA Police Union wage claim would cost the Government an additional $30 million? (4) Is the minister aware that for all constables to progress to a salary of $59 000, as the advertisement claims, the constables would need to have served for 15 years? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) This is pretty amazing, is it not? Here we have again a whole lot of misinformation coming from the people opposite. They should reflect on what they said they would do for police officers for years and never did. Every year for eight long years they said that a Liberal Government would give police officers occupational health and safety coverage. In eight years they never even drafted the legislation. Not one dollar was allocated and not one line of legislation was drafted. They said that they thought that police officers, like other workers, should have a right of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. Did they give them one? No, they did not. It was up to us to put the legislation through. Police officers in this State had been asking for those two things for decades. For eight years the previous Government said that it would do it and for eight years it did not deliver. Now all we hear from them is nonsense. Where is the Opposition’s police spokesman this week? Where are his priorities? He has not been to the Parliament this week All he does is go on radio and talk a lot of nonsense; a little like the nonsense we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this week. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Why don’t you answer the question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member does not like what I am saying, but I am afraid she will have to hear it because I am outlining the facts. The facts of the matter are that we cannot believe the people opposite. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
(3) Is the minister aware that rather than costing $100 million, as the advertisement claims, the WA Police Union wage claim would cost the Government an additional $30 million? (4) Is the minister aware that for all constables to progress to a salary of $59 000, as the advertisement claims, the constables would need to have served for 15 years? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) This is pretty amazing, is it not? Here we have again a whole lot of misinformation coming from the people opposite. They should reflect on what they said they would do for police officers for years and never did. Every year for eight long years they said that a Liberal Government would give police officers occupational health and safety coverage. In eight years they never even drafted the legislation. Not one dollar was allocated and not one line of legislation was drafted. They said that they thought that police officers, like other workers, should have a right of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. Did they give them one? No, they did not. It was up to us to put the legislation through. Police officers in this State had been asking for those two things for decades. For eight years the previous Government said that it would do it and for eight years it did not deliver. Now all we hear from them is nonsense. Where is the Opposition’s police spokesman this week? Where are his priorities? He has not been to the Parliament this week All he does is go on radio and talk a lot of nonsense; a little like the nonsense we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this week. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Why don’t you answer the question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member does not like what I am saying, but I am afraid she will have to hear it because I am outlining the facts. The facts of the matter are that we cannot believe the people opposite. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
(4) Is the minister aware that for all constables to progress to a salary of $59 000, as the advertisement claims, the constables would need to have served for 15 years? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) This is pretty amazing, is it not? Here we have again a whole lot of misinformation coming from the people opposite. They should reflect on what they said they would do for police officers for years and never did. Every year for eight long years they said that a Liberal Government would give police officers occupational health and safety coverage. In eight years they never even drafted the legislation. Not one dollar was allocated and not one line of legislation was drafted. They said that they thought that police officers, like other workers, should have a right of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. Did they give them one? No, they did not. It was up to us to put the legislation through. Police officers in this State had been asking for those two things for decades. For eight years the previous Government said that it would do it and for eight years it did not deliver. Now all we hear from them is nonsense. Where is the Opposition’s police spokesman this week? Where are his priorities? He has not been to the Parliament this week All he does is go on radio and talk a lot of nonsense; a little like the nonsense we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this week. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Why don’t you answer the question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member does not like what I am saying, but I am afraid she will have to hear it because I am outlining the facts. The facts of the matter are that we cannot believe the people opposite. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) This is pretty amazing, is it not? Here we have again a whole lot of misinformation coming from the people opposite. They should reflect on what they said they would do for police officers for years and never did. Every year for eight long years they said that a Liberal Government would give police officers occupational health and safety coverage. In eight years they never even drafted the legislation. Not one dollar was allocated and not one line of legislation was drafted. They said that they thought that police officers, like other workers, should have a right of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. Did they give them one? No, they did not. It was up to us to put the legislation through. Police officers in this State had been asking for those two things for decades. For eight years the previous Government said that it would do it and for eight years it did not deliver. Now all we hear from them is nonsense. Where is the Opposition’s police spokesman this week? Where are his priorities? He has not been to the Parliament this week All he does is go on radio and talk a lot of nonsense; a little like the nonsense we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this week. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Why don’t you answer the question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member does not like what I am saying, but I am afraid she will have to hear it because I am outlining the facts. The facts of the matter are that we cannot believe the people opposite. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
(1)-(4) This is pretty amazing, is it not? Here we have again a whole lot of misinformation coming from the people opposite. They should reflect on what they said they would do for police officers for years and never did. Every year for eight long years they said that a Liberal Government would give police officers occupational health and safety coverage. In eight years they never even drafted the legislation. Not one dollar was allocated and not one line of legislation was drafted. They said that they thought that police officers, like other workers, should have a right of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. Did they give them one? No, they did not. It was up to us to put the legislation through. Police officers in this State had been asking for those two things for decades. For eight years the previous Government said that it would do it and for eight years it did not deliver. Now all we hear from them is nonsense. Where is the Opposition’s police spokesman this week? Where are his priorities? He has not been to the Parliament this week All he does is go on radio and talk a lot of nonsense; a little like the nonsense we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this week. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Why don’t you answer the question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member does not like what I am saying, but I am afraid she will have to hear it because I am outlining the facts. The facts of the matter are that we cannot believe the people opposite. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Why don’t you answer the question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member does not like what I am saying, but I am afraid she will have to hear it because I am outlining the facts. The facts of the matter are that we cannot believe the people opposite. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member does not like what I am saying, but I am afraid she will have to hear it because I am outlining the facts. The facts of the matter are that we cannot believe the people opposite. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
(1) Did the minister, in her capacity as Minister for Police, approve the advertisement and verify its contents before it was lodged for publication? (2) Is the minister aware that far from making progress on Labor’s promise to recruit 250 additional police officers, as the advertisement claims, this Government has in fact only recruited 38 additional police officers since the beginning of its first full financial year? (3) Is the minister aware that rather than costing $100 million, as the advertisement claims, the WA Police Union wage claim would cost the Government an additional $30 million? (4) Is the minister aware that for all constables to progress to a salary of $59 000, as the advertisement claims, the constables would need to have served for 15 years? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) This is pretty amazing, is it not? Here we have again a whole lot of misinformation coming from the people opposite. They should reflect on what they said they would do for police officers for years and never did. Every year for eight long years they said that a Liberal Government would give police officers occupational health and safety coverage. In eight years they never even drafted the legislation. Not one dollar was allocated and not one line of legislation was drafted. They said that they thought that police officers, like other workers, should have a right of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. Did they give them one? No, they did not. It was up to us to put the legislation through. Police officers in this State had been asking for those two things for decades. For eight years the previous Government said that it would do it and for eight years it did not deliver. Now all we hear from them is nonsense. Where is the Opposition’s police spokesman this week? Where are his priorities? He has not been to the Parliament this week All he does is go on radio and talk a lot of nonsense; a little like the nonsense we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this week. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Why don’t you answer the question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member does not like what I am saying, but I am afraid she will have to hear it because I am outlining the facts. The facts of the matter are that we cannot believe the people opposite. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
(2) Is the minister aware that far from making progress on Labor’s promise to recruit 250 additional police officers, as the advertisement claims, this Government has in fact only recruited 38 additional police officers since the beginning of its first full financial year? (3) Is the minister aware that rather than costing $100 million, as the advertisement claims, the WA Police Union wage claim would cost the Government an additional $30 million? (4) Is the minister aware that for all constables to progress to a salary of $59 000, as the advertisement claims, the constables would need to have served for 15 years? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) This is pretty amazing, is it not? Here we have again a whole lot of misinformation coming from the people opposite. They should reflect on what they said they would do for police officers for years and never did. Every year for eight long years they said that a Liberal Government would give police officers occupational health and safety coverage. In eight years they never even drafted the legislation. Not one dollar was allocated and not one line of legislation was drafted. They said that they thought that police officers, like other workers, should have a right of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. Did they give them one? No, they did not. It was up to us to put the legislation through. Police officers in this State had been asking for those two things for decades. For eight years the previous Government said that it would do it and for eight years it did not deliver. Now all we hear from them is nonsense. Where is the Opposition’s police spokesman this week? Where are his priorities? He has not been to the Parliament this week All he does is go on radio and talk a lot of nonsense; a little like the nonsense we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this week. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Why don’t you answer the question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member does not like what I am saying, but I am afraid she will have to hear it because I am outlining the facts. The facts of the matter are that we cannot believe the people opposite. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
(3) Is the minister aware that rather than costing $100 million, as the advertisement claims, the WA Police Union wage claim would cost the Government an additional $30 million? (4) Is the minister aware that for all constables to progress to a salary of $59 000, as the advertisement claims, the constables would need to have served for 15 years? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) This is pretty amazing, is it not? Here we have again a whole lot of misinformation coming from the people opposite. They should reflect on what they said they would do for police officers for years and never did. Every year for eight long years they said that a Liberal Government would give police officers occupational health and safety coverage. In eight years they never even drafted the legislation. Not one dollar was allocated and not one line of legislation was drafted. They said that they thought that police officers, like other workers, should have a right of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. Did they give them one? No, they did not. It was up to us to put the legislation through. Police officers in this State had been asking for those two things for decades. For eight years the previous Government said that it would do it and for eight years it did not deliver. Now all we hear from them is nonsense. Where is the Opposition’s police spokesman this week? Where are his priorities? He has not been to the Parliament this week All he does is go on radio and talk a lot of nonsense; a little like the nonsense we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this week. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Why don’t you answer the question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member does not like what I am saying, but I am afraid she will have to hear it because I am outlining the facts. The facts of the matter are that we cannot believe the people opposite. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
(4) Is the minister aware that for all constables to progress to a salary of $59 000, as the advertisement claims, the constables would need to have served for 15 years? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) This is pretty amazing, is it not? Here we have again a whole lot of misinformation coming from the people opposite. They should reflect on what they said they would do for police officers for years and never did. Every year for eight long years they said that a Liberal Government would give police officers occupational health and safety coverage. In eight years they never even drafted the legislation. Not one dollar was allocated and not one line of legislation was drafted. They said that they thought that police officers, like other workers, should have a right of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. Did they give them one? No, they did not. It was up to us to put the legislation through. Police officers in this State had been asking for those two things for decades. For eight years the previous Government said that it would do it and for eight years it did not deliver. Now all we hear from them is nonsense. Where is the Opposition’s police spokesman this week? Where are his priorities? He has not been to the Parliament this week All he does is go on radio and talk a lot of nonsense; a little like the nonsense we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this week. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Why don’t you answer the question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member does not like what I am saying, but I am afraid she will have to hear it because I am outlining the facts. The facts of the matter are that we cannot believe the people opposite. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS replied: (1)-(4) This is pretty amazing, is it not? Here we have again a whole lot of misinformation coming from the people opposite. They should reflect on what they said they would do for police officers for years and never did. Every year for eight long years they said that a Liberal Government would give police officers occupational health and safety coverage. In eight years they never even drafted the legislation. Not one dollar was allocated and not one line of legislation was drafted. They said that they thought that police officers, like other workers, should have a right of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. Did they give them one? No, they did not. It was up to us to put the legislation through. Police officers in this State had been asking for those two things for decades. For eight years the previous Government said that it would do it and for eight years it did not deliver. Now all we hear from them is nonsense. Where is the Opposition’s police spokesman this week? Where are his priorities? He has not been to the Parliament this week All he does is go on radio and talk a lot of nonsense; a little like the nonsense we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this week. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Why don’t you answer the question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member does not like what I am saying, but I am afraid she will have to hear it because I am outlining the facts. The facts of the matter are that we cannot believe the people opposite. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
(1)-(4) This is pretty amazing, is it not? Here we have again a whole lot of misinformation coming from the people opposite. They should reflect on what they said they would do for police officers for years and never did. Every year for eight long years they said that a Liberal Government would give police officers occupational health and safety coverage. In eight years they never even drafted the legislation. Not one dollar was allocated and not one line of legislation was drafted. They said that they thought that police officers, like other workers, should have a right of appeal to the Industrial Relations Commission. Did they give them one? No, they did not. It was up to us to put the legislation through. Police officers in this State had been asking for those two things for decades. For eight years the previous Government said that it would do it and for eight years it did not deliver. Now all we hear from them is nonsense. Where is the Opposition’s police spokesman this week? Where are his priorities? He has not been to the Parliament this week All he does is go on radio and talk a lot of nonsense; a little like the nonsense we have heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this week. Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Why don’t you answer the question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member does not like what I am saying, but I am afraid she will have to hear it because I am outlining the facts. The facts of the matter are that we cannot believe the people opposite. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Ms K. Hodson-Thomas: Why don’t you answer the question? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member does not like what I am saying, but I am afraid she will have to hear it because I am outlining the facts. The facts of the matter are that we cannot believe the people opposite. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The member does not like what I am saying, but I am afraid she will have to hear it because I am outlining the facts. The facts of the matter are that we cannot believe the people opposite. Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Did you approve the advertisement? Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: We have - Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: You are the Minister for Police. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Do I have the call, Mr Speaker? The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
The SPEAKER: Deputy Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: The fact of the matter is that during our four years in government we will recruit over 1 000 police officers. In the same way as the previous Government did, this Government loses somewhere in the order of 170 to 180 police officers a year from the Police Service. Taking that into account, to achieve the target of an additional 250 officers over four years, we need to recruit over 1 000. We have already an additional 115 police officers and 20 Aboriginal police liaison officers, and we are on target to deliver the 250 additional officers. They are the facts; they are indisputable. As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
As to whether I approved the advertisement, I did not approve the advertisement. I was made aware of the contents of the advertisement. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Mr C.J. Barnett: It was from the Premier’s office, wasn’t it? The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
The SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition! Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Members of my staff checked the facts that were presented in those advertisements and believed those facts to be correct. As I understand it, the advertisement merely puts the facts of the situation on the table. Unfortunately, the Police Union has said that all we are offering is nine per cent. We have offered more than nine per cent to a range of officers. One of the categories is that of senior constables. Why are we offering additional pay to a senior constable who has been in the service for 15 years? It is because the Police Union asked for it. The union said on behalf of its officers that a group of officers’ pay plateaus in the service and that unless those officers are promoted to sergeant they will not receive any further wage increase. That is the situation that people opposite put them in. We said that we agreed, that those constables who choose to remain at that level and do not go for promotion to sergeant should be recognised for their experience and their service. That is why we are paying them more. In fact, for those senior officers our offer represents a 12 per cent increase over three years, which is not too far short of what the union is asking for. The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
The third part of the question is a nonsense. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is asking whether the offer will cost $100 million or whether it is an additional $30 million. The police have already been offered a $70 million package, but they are not happy with that and want an additional $30 million. They want a package worth $100 million more than they are currently being paid. Whichever way one looks at it, it is a $100 million package. It is clear to us, and it is clear from the question, that those opposite understood exactly what that meant. All we have heard from members opposite is absolute nonsense. As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
As part of his commentary, the opposition spokesperson said that he thinks one of the reasons we are picking on the WA Police Union is that it is one of the only unions in Western Australia not affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. Perhaps someone would like to tell him about the teachers, the nurses the public servants, prison officers and the CALM firefighters, none of whom are affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. What a load of nonsense. The shadow minister cannot even attend Parliament in a week in which these important issues are debated; and members opposite cannot get their facts right.
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.