❓ Opposition Leader Barnett questions the Acting Premier about the Minister for Tourism's involvement in a past case and calls for him to stand aside during a current court case. The Acting Premier dismisses the concerns, citing previous discussions and questioning the timing.
AnsweredQoN 1354Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Acting Premier to the evidence of former detective Tony Lewandowski to the Supreme Court on 27 December 2002, in which he stated that he had told the police royal commission that the now Minister for Tourism may have been conned into testifying against the Mickelbergs in a 1998 Court of Criminal Appeal case. (1) Given that this matter was raised in the police royal commission and may be subject to findings of that commission, will the Acting Premier stand aside the Minister for Tourism until findings on this matter are made? (2) Given that the Minister for Tourism’s 1998 evidence directly contradicts the evidence of the Mickelbergs - a matter that is currently before the Court of Criminal Appeal - will the Acting Premier stand aside the Minister for Tourism until that court case is concluded and a finding is made about the veracity or otherwise of the minister’s 1998 evidence? (3) If not, will the Acting Premier now admit that the Labor Government’s promise of ministerial accountability is in tatters? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
I am interested in the fact that a series of questions on this theme was asked about a year ago. The issues were all dealt with at that time. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, they were not. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Somewhat coincidentally, the Opposition has asked a series of questions on the same issue today. Why is this week different from two weeks ago? Mr C.J. Barnett: The court case is happening this week. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
(1) Given that this matter was raised in the police royal commission and may be subject to findings of that commission, will the Acting Premier stand aside the Minister for Tourism until findings on this matter are made? (2) Given that the Minister for Tourism’s 1998 evidence directly contradicts the evidence of the Mickelbergs - a matter that is currently before the Court of Criminal Appeal - will the Acting Premier stand aside the Minister for Tourism until that court case is concluded and a finding is made about the veracity or otherwise of the minister’s 1998 evidence? (3) If not, will the Acting Premier now admit that the Labor Government’s promise of ministerial accountability is in tatters? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I am interested in the fact that a series of questions on this theme was asked about a year ago. The issues were all dealt with at that time. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, they were not. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Somewhat coincidentally, the Opposition has asked a series of questions on the same issue today. Why is this week different from two weeks ago? Mr C.J. Barnett: The court case is happening this week. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
(2) Given that the Minister for Tourism’s 1998 evidence directly contradicts the evidence of the Mickelbergs - a matter that is currently before the Court of Criminal Appeal - will the Acting Premier stand aside the Minister for Tourism until that court case is concluded and a finding is made about the veracity or otherwise of the minister’s 1998 evidence? (3) If not, will the Acting Premier now admit that the Labor Government’s promise of ministerial accountability is in tatters? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I am interested in the fact that a series of questions on this theme was asked about a year ago. The issues were all dealt with at that time. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, they were not. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Somewhat coincidentally, the Opposition has asked a series of questions on the same issue today. Why is this week different from two weeks ago? Mr C.J. Barnett: The court case is happening this week. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
(3) If not, will the Acting Premier now admit that the Labor Government’s promise of ministerial accountability is in tatters? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I am interested in the fact that a series of questions on this theme was asked about a year ago. The issues were all dealt with at that time. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, they were not. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Somewhat coincidentally, the Opposition has asked a series of questions on the same issue today. Why is this week different from two weeks ago? Mr C.J. Barnett: The court case is happening this week. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I am interested in the fact that a series of questions on this theme was asked about a year ago. The issues were all dealt with at that time. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, they were not. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Somewhat coincidentally, the Opposition has asked a series of questions on the same issue today. Why is this week different from two weeks ago? Mr C.J. Barnett: The court case is happening this week. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
I am interested in the fact that a series of questions on this theme was asked about a year ago. The issues were all dealt with at that time. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, they were not. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Somewhat coincidentally, the Opposition has asked a series of questions on the same issue today. Why is this week different from two weeks ago? Mr C.J. Barnett: The court case is happening this week. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr C.J. Barnett: No, they were not. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Somewhat coincidentally, the Opposition has asked a series of questions on the same issue today. Why is this week different from two weeks ago? Mr C.J. Barnett: The court case is happening this week. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: Somewhat coincidentally, the Opposition has asked a series of questions on the same issue today. Why is this week different from two weeks ago? Mr C.J. Barnett: The court case is happening this week. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr C.J. Barnett: The court case is happening this week. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
(1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
(2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
(3) No.
(1) Given that this matter was raised in the police royal commission and may be subject to findings of that commission, will the Acting Premier stand aside the Minister for Tourism until findings on this matter are made? (2) Given that the Minister for Tourism’s 1998 evidence directly contradicts the evidence of the Mickelbergs - a matter that is currently before the Court of Criminal Appeal - will the Acting Premier stand aside the Minister for Tourism until that court case is concluded and a finding is made about the veracity or otherwise of the minister’s 1998 evidence? (3) If not, will the Acting Premier now admit that the Labor Government’s promise of ministerial accountability is in tatters? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I am interested in the fact that a series of questions on this theme was asked about a year ago. The issues were all dealt with at that time. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, they were not. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Somewhat coincidentally, the Opposition has asked a series of questions on the same issue today. Why is this week different from two weeks ago? Mr C.J. Barnett: The court case is happening this week. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
(2) Given that the Minister for Tourism’s 1998 evidence directly contradicts the evidence of the Mickelbergs - a matter that is currently before the Court of Criminal Appeal - will the Acting Premier stand aside the Minister for Tourism until that court case is concluded and a finding is made about the veracity or otherwise of the minister’s 1998 evidence? (3) If not, will the Acting Premier now admit that the Labor Government’s promise of ministerial accountability is in tatters? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I am interested in the fact that a series of questions on this theme was asked about a year ago. The issues were all dealt with at that time. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, they were not. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Somewhat coincidentally, the Opposition has asked a series of questions on the same issue today. Why is this week different from two weeks ago? Mr C.J. Barnett: The court case is happening this week. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
(3) If not, will the Acting Premier now admit that the Labor Government’s promise of ministerial accountability is in tatters? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I am interested in the fact that a series of questions on this theme was asked about a year ago. The issues were all dealt with at that time. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, they were not. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Somewhat coincidentally, the Opposition has asked a series of questions on the same issue today. Why is this week different from two weeks ago? Mr C.J. Barnett: The court case is happening this week. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I am interested in the fact that a series of questions on this theme was asked about a year ago. The issues were all dealt with at that time. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, they were not. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Somewhat coincidentally, the Opposition has asked a series of questions on the same issue today. Why is this week different from two weeks ago? Mr C.J. Barnett: The court case is happening this week. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
I am interested in the fact that a series of questions on this theme was asked about a year ago. The issues were all dealt with at that time. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, they were not. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Somewhat coincidentally, the Opposition has asked a series of questions on the same issue today. Why is this week different from two weeks ago? Mr C.J. Barnett: The court case is happening this week. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr C.J. Barnett: No, they were not. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Somewhat coincidentally, the Opposition has asked a series of questions on the same issue today. Why is this week different from two weeks ago? Mr C.J. Barnett: The court case is happening this week. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: Somewhat coincidentally, the Opposition has asked a series of questions on the same issue today. Why is this week different from two weeks ago? Mr C.J. Barnett: The court case is happening this week. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr C.J. Barnett: The court case is happening this week. Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: Exactly. Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr C.J. Barnett: That is why the minister should stand aside while the court case is on. Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: That has prompted the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question. Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Exactly. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think it is a very dangerous use of parliamentary privilege to canvass issues that relate to evidence that either will or ought to be given in a court case while that court case is ongoing. Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr C.J. Barnett: No, it is not. It is not privilege. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: I can provide answers to the three questions the Leader of the Opposition asked. (1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
(1) No. (2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
(2) Not applicable because the premise of the question is wrong. (3) No.
(3) No.
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.