❓ Question regarding the Labor Party's stance on retail trading hours and the potential impact of contradictory voting on businesses in specific Perth suburbs. Premier Barnett responds, highlighting the government's deregulation efforts and challenges due to divided opinions.
AnsweredQoN 344Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
RETAIL TRADING HOURS — Labor Party’S POSITION
Yesterday we heard that the Labor Party had finally agreed to the extension of weeknight trading, yet later today we might see the ludicrous situation of Labor voting with other parties in the Legislative Council to disallow the expansion of the Perth trading precinct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : Should Labor contradict its support for extended trading hours by voting for the disallowance — Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : — what impact will this hypocritical move have on the shops in Mt Lawley, Victoria Park, Subiaco, West Leederville, Leederville, North Perth, Highgate, East Perth and South Perth? Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : That was an opinion. Mr R.F. Johnson : No, it was not. The SPEAKER : Before you answer the question, Premier, I will provide advice to this house that seeking an opinion is not necessarily a process that we should engage in, in this place. Member for Mount Lawley, I do not know if you are seeking an opinion. The Premier, of course, is entitled to answer the question if he chooses to do so, but asking an opinion of a person in this place is not appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr P. Papalia : What’s your opinion about tea sets? The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT
Yesterday we heard that the Labor Party had finally agreed to the extension of weeknight trading, yet later today we might see the ludicrous situation of Labor voting with other parties in the Legislative Council to disallow the expansion of the Perth trading precinct. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : Should Labor contradict its support for extended trading hours by voting for the disallowance — Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : — what impact will this hypocritical move have on the shops in Mt Lawley, Victoria Park, Subiaco, West Leederville, Leederville, North Perth, Highgate, East Perth and South Perth? Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : That was an opinion. Mr R.F. Johnson : No, it was not. The SPEAKER : Before you answer the question, Premier, I will provide advice to this house that seeking an opinion is not necessarily a process that we should engage in, in this place. Member for Mount Lawley, I do not know if you are seeking an opinion. The Premier, of course, is entitled to answer the question if he chooses to do so, but asking an opinion of a person in this place is not appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr P. Papalia : What’s your opinion about tea sets? The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : Should Labor contradict its support for extended trading hours by voting for the disallowance — Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : — what impact will this hypocritical move have on the shops in Mt Lawley, Victoria Park, Subiaco, West Leederville, Leederville, North Perth, Highgate, East Perth and South Perth? Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : That was an opinion. Mr R.F. Johnson : No, it was not. The SPEAKER : Before you answer the question, Premier, I will provide advice to this house that seeking an opinion is not necessarily a process that we should engage in, in this place. Member for Mount Lawley, I do not know if you are seeking an opinion. The Premier, of course, is entitled to answer the question if he chooses to do so, but asking an opinion of a person in this place is not appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr P. Papalia : What’s your opinion about tea sets? The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : Should Labor contradict its support for extended trading hours by voting for the disallowance — Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : — what impact will this hypocritical move have on the shops in Mt Lawley, Victoria Park, Subiaco, West Leederville, Leederville, North Perth, Highgate, East Perth and South Perth? Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : That was an opinion. Mr R.F. Johnson : No, it was not. The SPEAKER : Before you answer the question, Premier, I will provide advice to this house that seeking an opinion is not necessarily a process that we should engage in, in this place. Member for Mount Lawley, I do not know if you are seeking an opinion. The Premier, of course, is entitled to answer the question if he chooses to do so, but asking an opinion of a person in this place is not appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr P. Papalia : What’s your opinion about tea sets? The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : Should Labor contradict its support for extended trading hours by voting for the disallowance — Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : — what impact will this hypocritical move have on the shops in Mt Lawley, Victoria Park, Subiaco, West Leederville, Leederville, North Perth, Highgate, East Perth and South Perth? Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : That was an opinion. Mr R.F. Johnson : No, it was not. The SPEAKER : Before you answer the question, Premier, I will provide advice to this house that seeking an opinion is not necessarily a process that we should engage in, in this place. Member for Mount Lawley, I do not know if you are seeking an opinion. The Premier, of course, is entitled to answer the question if he chooses to do so, but asking an opinion of a person in this place is not appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr P. Papalia : What’s your opinion about tea sets? The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : — what impact will this hypocritical move have on the shops in Mt Lawley, Victoria Park, Subiaco, West Leederville, Leederville, North Perth, Highgate, East Perth and South Perth? Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : That was an opinion. Mr R.F. Johnson : No, it was not. The SPEAKER : Before you answer the question, Premier, I will provide advice to this house that seeking an opinion is not necessarily a process that we should engage in, in this place. Member for Mount Lawley, I do not know if you are seeking an opinion. The Premier, of course, is entitled to answer the question if he chooses to do so, but asking an opinion of a person in this place is not appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr P. Papalia : What’s your opinion about tea sets? The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : — what impact will this hypocritical move have on the shops in Mt Lawley, Victoria Park, Subiaco, West Leederville, Leederville, North Perth, Highgate, East Perth and South Perth? Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : That was an opinion. Mr R.F. Johnson : No, it was not. The SPEAKER : Before you answer the question, Premier, I will provide advice to this house that seeking an opinion is not necessarily a process that we should engage in, in this place. Member for Mount Lawley, I do not know if you are seeking an opinion. The Premier, of course, is entitled to answer the question if he chooses to do so, but asking an opinion of a person in this place is not appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr P. Papalia : What’s your opinion about tea sets? The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : — what impact will this hypocritical move have on the shops in Mt Lawley, Victoria Park, Subiaco, West Leederville, Leederville, North Perth, Highgate, East Perth and South Perth? Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : That was an opinion. Mr R.F. Johnson : No, it was not. The SPEAKER : Before you answer the question, Premier, I will provide advice to this house that seeking an opinion is not necessarily a process that we should engage in, in this place. Member for Mount Lawley, I do not know if you are seeking an opinion. The Premier, of course, is entitled to answer the question if he chooses to do so, but asking an opinion of a person in this place is not appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr P. Papalia : What’s your opinion about tea sets? The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr R.F. Johnson : No, it was not. The SPEAKER : Before you answer the question, Premier, I will provide advice to this house that seeking an opinion is not necessarily a process that we should engage in, in this place. Member for Mount Lawley, I do not know if you are seeking an opinion. The Premier, of course, is entitled to answer the question if he chooses to do so, but asking an opinion of a person in this place is not appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr P. Papalia : What’s your opinion about tea sets? The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
The SPEAKER : Before you answer the question, Premier, I will provide advice to this house that seeking an opinion is not necessarily a process that we should engage in, in this place. Member for Mount Lawley, I do not know if you are seeking an opinion. The Premier, of course, is entitled to answer the question if he chooses to do so, but asking an opinion of a person in this place is not appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr P. Papalia : What’s your opinion about tea sets? The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : Should Labor contradict its support for extended trading hours by voting for the disallowance — Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : — what impact will this hypocritical move have on the shops in Mt Lawley, Victoria Park, Subiaco, West Leederville, Leederville, North Perth, Highgate, East Perth and South Perth? Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : That was an opinion. Mr R.F. Johnson : No, it was not. The SPEAKER : Before you answer the question, Premier, I will provide advice to this house that seeking an opinion is not necessarily a process that we should engage in, in this place. Member for Mount Lawley, I do not know if you are seeking an opinion. The Premier, of course, is entitled to answer the question if he chooses to do so, but asking an opinion of a person in this place is not appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr P. Papalia : What’s your opinion about tea sets? The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : Should Labor contradict its support for extended trading hours by voting for the disallowance — Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : — what impact will this hypocritical move have on the shops in Mt Lawley, Victoria Park, Subiaco, West Leederville, Leederville, North Perth, Highgate, East Perth and South Perth? Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : That was an opinion. Mr R.F. Johnson : No, it was not. The SPEAKER : Before you answer the question, Premier, I will provide advice to this house that seeking an opinion is not necessarily a process that we should engage in, in this place. Member for Mount Lawley, I do not know if you are seeking an opinion. The Premier, of course, is entitled to answer the question if he chooses to do so, but asking an opinion of a person in this place is not appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr P. Papalia : What’s your opinion about tea sets? The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : Should Labor contradict its support for extended trading hours by voting for the disallowance — Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : — what impact will this hypocritical move have on the shops in Mt Lawley, Victoria Park, Subiaco, West Leederville, Leederville, North Perth, Highgate, East Perth and South Perth? Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : That was an opinion. Mr R.F. Johnson : No, it was not. The SPEAKER : Before you answer the question, Premier, I will provide advice to this house that seeking an opinion is not necessarily a process that we should engage in, in this place. Member for Mount Lawley, I do not know if you are seeking an opinion. The Premier, of course, is entitled to answer the question if he chooses to do so, but asking an opinion of a person in this place is not appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr P. Papalia : What’s your opinion about tea sets? The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : — what impact will this hypocritical move have on the shops in Mt Lawley, Victoria Park, Subiaco, West Leederville, Leederville, North Perth, Highgate, East Perth and South Perth? Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : That was an opinion. Mr R.F. Johnson : No, it was not. The SPEAKER : Before you answer the question, Premier, I will provide advice to this house that seeking an opinion is not necessarily a process that we should engage in, in this place. Member for Mount Lawley, I do not know if you are seeking an opinion. The Premier, of course, is entitled to answer the question if he chooses to do so, but asking an opinion of a person in this place is not appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr P. Papalia : What’s your opinion about tea sets? The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : — what impact will this hypocritical move have on the shops in Mt Lawley, Victoria Park, Subiaco, West Leederville, Leederville, North Perth, Highgate, East Perth and South Perth? Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : That was an opinion. Mr R.F. Johnson : No, it was not. The SPEAKER : Before you answer the question, Premier, I will provide advice to this house that seeking an opinion is not necessarily a process that we should engage in, in this place. Member for Mount Lawley, I do not know if you are seeking an opinion. The Premier, of course, is entitled to answer the question if he chooses to do so, but asking an opinion of a person in this place is not appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr P. Papalia : What’s your opinion about tea sets? The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr M.W. SUTHERLAND : — what impact will this hypocritical move have on the shops in Mt Lawley, Victoria Park, Subiaco, West Leederville, Leederville, North Perth, Highgate, East Perth and South Perth? Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : That was an opinion. Mr R.F. Johnson : No, it was not. The SPEAKER : Before you answer the question, Premier, I will provide advice to this house that seeking an opinion is not necessarily a process that we should engage in, in this place. Member for Mount Lawley, I do not know if you are seeking an opinion. The Premier, of course, is entitled to answer the question if he chooses to do so, but asking an opinion of a person in this place is not appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr P. Papalia : What’s your opinion about tea sets? The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr R.F. Johnson : No, it was not. The SPEAKER : Before you answer the question, Premier, I will provide advice to this house that seeking an opinion is not necessarily a process that we should engage in, in this place. Member for Mount Lawley, I do not know if you are seeking an opinion. The Premier, of course, is entitled to answer the question if he chooses to do so, but asking an opinion of a person in this place is not appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr P. Papalia : What’s your opinion about tea sets? The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
The SPEAKER : Before you answer the question, Premier, I will provide advice to this house that seeking an opinion is not necessarily a process that we should engage in, in this place. Member for Mount Lawley, I do not know if you are seeking an opinion. The Premier, of course, is entitled to answer the question if he chooses to do so, but asking an opinion of a person in this place is not appropriate. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr P. Papalia : What’s your opinion about tea sets? The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
The SPEAKER : Thank you, member for Warnbro! Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
This government is dealing with the result of over 100 years of regulation of the retail industry in this state. Laws were made for various reasons at various stages in our history that designated when shops could and could not open, and therefore, by default, when people could and could not go shopping. Values and judgements have varied over the past 100 years. This government is trying to untangle that 100 years of history. We have a philosophical and policy agenda of moving down the path of deregulation. I recognise that it is complex and that there are varying opinions amongst members of Parliament and the wider community, there has been a referendum of sorts, and there is great division of opinion within the retail industry. It is hard for a government—be it a Liberal or a Labor government—to move down a deregulatory path when there is a complete division of opinion within the industry it is dealing with. They cannot agree with themselves—even today they cannot agree with themselves. It is not easy. At the time of the last election the Liberal Party said that it would support a staged deregulation, and during this term of government, if elected, it would move to have weeknight shopping across the metropolitan area. That was our election commitment. We came into power, we brought in a piece of legislation, which has been in this house for over 12 months, to have weeknight shopping to nine o’clock Monday to Friday. The Labor Party’s position was to oppose that. Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Partly out of frustration we extended the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle to include, basically, inner city suburbs in both cases, particularly for Perth, and we have introduced legislation for a tourism precinct, or special trading zone, in Joondalup. I hope members will support that, because I know that people in the northern suburbs very much want that. Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr E.S. Ripper : Yes, we are. Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : That is good to hear. Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr A.P. O’Gorman interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am pleased to hear that the member for Joondalup is now supporting his constituents—that is refreshing! Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Also, in line with the bills the Minister for Planning introduced last week, we will be bringing in a similar special trading zone for Midland, which I understand the member for Midland supports; and we are going to do a special trading zone for Armadale, which I understand the about-to-depart member for Armadale supports. There is an element of support for that. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : It was our policy at the last election! We were honest with the public. We actually had a policy at the last election! Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is like fly fishing—I do not have to even throw any berley out and she bites! Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan : You are such an arrogant idiot! Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I shall continue. Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Ms A.J.G. MacTiernan interjected. Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr R.F. Johnson : We are going to really miss you! The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
The SPEAKER : The difficulty I have, member for Armadale, being the member in this place furthest away from the comments you are making is that sometimes I want to hear them; sometimes I am not so sure. But the Premier has the call at the moment and he is the person I want to hear from. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Those varying positions of opposition to weeknight shopping, with individual members supporting deregulation in their electorates, just shows the sort of level of contradiction we collectively have as we try to untangle 100 years of regulation. I am very conscious that a disallowance motion will be moved by Hon Robin Chapple and debated today. I do not know what has motivated him to move that disallowance motion, but that is up to him. If that disallowance motion was agreed to by the upper house, it would mean a sense of great chaos. For example, I was in the member for Victoria Park’s electorate this morning talking to shoppers who, without exception—even if they did not use it—said that they liked weeknight shopping and they liked Sunday shopping in their special trading zone. Indeed, in the shopping centre I visited they said that people could barely move in there on Monday to Friday nights because so many city workers are shopping on the way home or getting home and going out, and it is very much a young, regenerated suburb. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The member for Victoria Park knows there is strong support for it in his electorate, and I think he supports it, as there is in Mt Lawley, Subiaco and elsewhere. Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr E.S. Ripper : Premier, can I ask you this? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, no, I just want to finish. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr E.S. Ripper : Will you take an interjection? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will take an interjection but I just want to finish the point I am making. I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
I do not know what has motivated Hon Robin Chapple to move this disallowance motion, but I understand that an argument might be made that the decision made by this government before Christmas to expand the boundaries of Perth and Fremantle may be contrary to the law—in other words, ultra vires. At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
At the time the government made that decision, it sought the advice of the State Solicitor’s Office, which confirmed that that was within the provisions of the trading hours legislation. I understand that some members—maybe members opposite—have a contrary point of view and, maybe, contrary legal opinion. I think that is okay, but I would say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider whether their legal opinion is better than that of the State Solicitor; and, to consider that if the State Solicitor is saying that the government can—as it did—expand those boundaries, if they were to vote to disallow it, they would be voting against the advice of the State Solicitor. It would be a very courageous position for members of Parliament to take to vote in the house against the advice of the State Solicitor, but if they chose to do so — Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : —they would be putting themselves — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
The SPEAKER : Take a seat, Premier. I get the impression that you are going to enable the Leader of the Opposition to make an interjection, and perhaps we should give that opportunity to the Leader of the Opposition when it arises, but other members in this place, for the time being, should also hear the Premier in silence. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The government is comfortable that the decision to expand the Perth and Fremantle trading precincts was valid and is valid—it is certainly popular in those areas—and that was confirmed by the advice of the State Solicitor at the time the decision was made and has since been subsequently reconfirmed. I understand that members opposite have, as they interjected, some alternate legal advice; fine. It is not unusual to get legal advice that differs. But I call upon members opposite, if they have, to disclose, perhaps now to the house, who prepared that legal advice and who funded it. I think it is in the public interest to know. Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
Mr E.S. Ripper : Are you going to take my interjection?
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.