❓ Question regarding the applicability of the ministerial code of ethics to the Minister for Transport and the declaration of his wife's shares. The Premier deflects and accuses the opposition of past corruption.
AnsweredQoN 331Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I ask a supplementary question. Does the ministerial code of ethics apply to the Minister for Transport and if so, did he declare to the Premier his interest of his wife’s shares? Mr COURT
AnswerView source ↗
The main code of conduct under which members of Parliament operate is - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow members to ask side questions and interject across the Chamber. Mr COURT: The Labor Government had a ministerial code of ethics and to summarise it, the first part was thou shalt stay out of jail at any price. All these matters have now been put into legislation and members must declare their financial interests. There is now freedom of information legislation and the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. The minister’s involvement in this matter has been conducted quite properly. Is the member for Armadale suggesting that the minister, who in this case had $1 900 of shares transferred to his wife, was inappropriate in his management of the matter? He had already declared his interest and everyone has known of the shares since 1993. The disclosure of interest allows people to know about the shares. Ms MacTiernan: We want to know if your cabinet ministers subscribe to this code of ethics? It is a straightforward question. Mr COURT: Members opposite are talking about a code of ethics! It was the most corrupt Government this State had ever seen, and the Labor Party is talking about ethics! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
Mr COURT replied: The main code of conduct under which members of Parliament operate is - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow members to ask side questions and interject across the Chamber. Mr COURT: The Labor Government had a ministerial code of ethics and to summarise it, the first part was thou shalt stay out of jail at any price. All these matters have now been put into legislation and members must declare their financial interests. There is now freedom of information legislation and the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. The minister’s involvement in this matter has been conducted quite properly. Is the member for Armadale suggesting that the minister, who in this case had $1 900 of shares transferred to his wife, was inappropriate in his management of the matter? He had already declared his interest and everyone has known of the shares since 1993. The disclosure of interest allows people to know about the shares. Ms MacTiernan: We want to know if your cabinet ministers subscribe to this code of ethics? It is a straightforward question. Mr COURT: Members opposite are talking about a code of ethics! It was the most corrupt Government this State had ever seen, and the Labor Party is talking about ethics! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
The main code of conduct under which members of Parliament operate is - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow members to ask side questions and interject across the Chamber. Mr COURT: The Labor Government had a ministerial code of ethics and to summarise it, the first part was thou shalt stay out of jail at any price. All these matters have now been put into legislation and members must declare their financial interests. There is now freedom of information legislation and the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. The minister’s involvement in this matter has been conducted quite properly. Is the member for Armadale suggesting that the minister, who in this case had $1 900 of shares transferred to his wife, was inappropriate in his management of the matter? He had already declared his interest and everyone has known of the shares since 1993. The disclosure of interest allows people to know about the shares. Ms MacTiernan: We want to know if your cabinet ministers subscribe to this code of ethics? It is a straightforward question. Mr COURT: Members opposite are talking about a code of ethics! It was the most corrupt Government this State had ever seen, and the Labor Party is talking about ethics! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow members to ask side questions and interject across the Chamber. Mr COURT: The Labor Government had a ministerial code of ethics and to summarise it, the first part was thou shalt stay out of jail at any price. All these matters have now been put into legislation and members must declare their financial interests. There is now freedom of information legislation and the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. The minister’s involvement in this matter has been conducted quite properly. Is the member for Armadale suggesting that the minister, who in this case had $1 900 of shares transferred to his wife, was inappropriate in his management of the matter? He had already declared his interest and everyone has known of the shares since 1993. The disclosure of interest allows people to know about the shares. Ms MacTiernan: We want to know if your cabinet ministers subscribe to this code of ethics? It is a straightforward question. Mr COURT: Members opposite are talking about a code of ethics! It was the most corrupt Government this State had ever seen, and the Labor Party is talking about ethics! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow members to ask side questions and interject across the Chamber. Mr COURT: The Labor Government had a ministerial code of ethics and to summarise it, the first part was thou shalt stay out of jail at any price. All these matters have now been put into legislation and members must declare their financial interests. There is now freedom of information legislation and the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. The minister’s involvement in this matter has been conducted quite properly. Is the member for Armadale suggesting that the minister, who in this case had $1 900 of shares transferred to his wife, was inappropriate in his management of the matter? He had already declared his interest and everyone has known of the shares since 1993. The disclosure of interest allows people to know about the shares. Ms MacTiernan: We want to know if your cabinet ministers subscribe to this code of ethics? It is a straightforward question. Mr COURT: Members opposite are talking about a code of ethics! It was the most corrupt Government this State had ever seen, and the Labor Party is talking about ethics! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
Mr COURT: The Labor Government had a ministerial code of ethics and to summarise it, the first part was thou shalt stay out of jail at any price. All these matters have now been put into legislation and members must declare their financial interests. There is now freedom of information legislation and the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. The minister’s involvement in this matter has been conducted quite properly. Is the member for Armadale suggesting that the minister, who in this case had $1 900 of shares transferred to his wife, was inappropriate in his management of the matter? He had already declared his interest and everyone has known of the shares since 1993. The disclosure of interest allows people to know about the shares. Ms MacTiernan: We want to know if your cabinet ministers subscribe to this code of ethics? It is a straightforward question. Mr COURT: Members opposite are talking about a code of ethics! It was the most corrupt Government this State had ever seen, and the Labor Party is talking about ethics! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
Is the member for Armadale suggesting that the minister, who in this case had $1 900 of shares transferred to his wife, was inappropriate in his management of the matter? He had already declared his interest and everyone has known of the shares since 1993. The disclosure of interest allows people to know about the shares. Ms MacTiernan: We want to know if your cabinet ministers subscribe to this code of ethics? It is a straightforward question. Mr COURT: Members opposite are talking about a code of ethics! It was the most corrupt Government this State had ever seen, and the Labor Party is talking about ethics! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
Ms MacTiernan: We want to know if your cabinet ministers subscribe to this code of ethics? It is a straightforward question. Mr COURT: Members opposite are talking about a code of ethics! It was the most corrupt Government this State had ever seen, and the Labor Party is talking about ethics! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
Mr COURT: Members opposite are talking about a code of ethics! It was the most corrupt Government this State had ever seen, and the Labor Party is talking about ethics! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
Mr COURT replied: The main code of conduct under which members of Parliament operate is - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow members to ask side questions and interject across the Chamber. Mr COURT: The Labor Government had a ministerial code of ethics and to summarise it, the first part was thou shalt stay out of jail at any price. All these matters have now been put into legislation and members must declare their financial interests. There is now freedom of information legislation and the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. The minister’s involvement in this matter has been conducted quite properly. Is the member for Armadale suggesting that the minister, who in this case had $1 900 of shares transferred to his wife, was inappropriate in his management of the matter? He had already declared his interest and everyone has known of the shares since 1993. The disclosure of interest allows people to know about the shares. Ms MacTiernan: We want to know if your cabinet ministers subscribe to this code of ethics? It is a straightforward question. Mr COURT: Members opposite are talking about a code of ethics! It was the most corrupt Government this State had ever seen, and the Labor Party is talking about ethics! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
The main code of conduct under which members of Parliament operate is - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow members to ask side questions and interject across the Chamber. Mr COURT: The Labor Government had a ministerial code of ethics and to summarise it, the first part was thou shalt stay out of jail at any price. All these matters have now been put into legislation and members must declare their financial interests. There is now freedom of information legislation and the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. The minister’s involvement in this matter has been conducted quite properly. Is the member for Armadale suggesting that the minister, who in this case had $1 900 of shares transferred to his wife, was inappropriate in his management of the matter? He had already declared his interest and everyone has known of the shares since 1993. The disclosure of interest allows people to know about the shares. Ms MacTiernan: We want to know if your cabinet ministers subscribe to this code of ethics? It is a straightforward question. Mr COURT: Members opposite are talking about a code of ethics! It was the most corrupt Government this State had ever seen, and the Labor Party is talking about ethics! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow members to ask side questions and interject across the Chamber. Mr COURT: The Labor Government had a ministerial code of ethics and to summarise it, the first part was thou shalt stay out of jail at any price. All these matters have now been put into legislation and members must declare their financial interests. There is now freedom of information legislation and the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. The minister’s involvement in this matter has been conducted quite properly. Is the member for Armadale suggesting that the minister, who in this case had $1 900 of shares transferred to his wife, was inappropriate in his management of the matter? He had already declared his interest and everyone has known of the shares since 1993. The disclosure of interest allows people to know about the shares. Ms MacTiernan: We want to know if your cabinet ministers subscribe to this code of ethics? It is a straightforward question. Mr COURT: Members opposite are talking about a code of ethics! It was the most corrupt Government this State had ever seen, and the Labor Party is talking about ethics! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow members to ask side questions and interject across the Chamber. Mr COURT: The Labor Government had a ministerial code of ethics and to summarise it, the first part was thou shalt stay out of jail at any price. All these matters have now been put into legislation and members must declare their financial interests. There is now freedom of information legislation and the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. The minister’s involvement in this matter has been conducted quite properly. Is the member for Armadale suggesting that the minister, who in this case had $1 900 of shares transferred to his wife, was inappropriate in his management of the matter? He had already declared his interest and everyone has known of the shares since 1993. The disclosure of interest allows people to know about the shares. Ms MacTiernan: We want to know if your cabinet ministers subscribe to this code of ethics? It is a straightforward question. Mr COURT: Members opposite are talking about a code of ethics! It was the most corrupt Government this State had ever seen, and the Labor Party is talking about ethics! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
Mr COURT: The Labor Government had a ministerial code of ethics and to summarise it, the first part was thou shalt stay out of jail at any price. All these matters have now been put into legislation and members must declare their financial interests. There is now freedom of information legislation and the Commissioner for Public Sector Standards. The minister’s involvement in this matter has been conducted quite properly. Is the member for Armadale suggesting that the minister, who in this case had $1 900 of shares transferred to his wife, was inappropriate in his management of the matter? He had already declared his interest and everyone has known of the shares since 1993. The disclosure of interest allows people to know about the shares. Ms MacTiernan: We want to know if your cabinet ministers subscribe to this code of ethics? It is a straightforward question. Mr COURT: Members opposite are talking about a code of ethics! It was the most corrupt Government this State had ever seen, and the Labor Party is talking about ethics! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
Is the member for Armadale suggesting that the minister, who in this case had $1 900 of shares transferred to his wife, was inappropriate in his management of the matter? He had already declared his interest and everyone has known of the shares since 1993. The disclosure of interest allows people to know about the shares. Ms MacTiernan: We want to know if your cabinet ministers subscribe to this code of ethics? It is a straightforward question. Mr COURT: Members opposite are talking about a code of ethics! It was the most corrupt Government this State had ever seen, and the Labor Party is talking about ethics! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
Ms MacTiernan: We want to know if your cabinet ministers subscribe to this code of ethics? It is a straightforward question. Mr COURT: Members opposite are talking about a code of ethics! It was the most corrupt Government this State had ever seen, and the Labor Party is talking about ethics! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
Mr COURT: Members opposite are talking about a code of ethics! It was the most corrupt Government this State had ever seen, and the Labor Party is talking about ethics! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
The SPEAKER: Order! I cannot allow two people to answer the question, along with a barrage of interjections from the other side. Question time has already taken 30 minutes and, although I am reluctant to cut it short, if members cannot control themselves a little better, I will do so. Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
Mr COURT: The Labor Party in government did not have a code of ethics. It oversaw the most corrupt, improper Government this State has ever seen. It had funds for favours and money coming in from its rich mates. Taxpayers money amounting to $1.5b was lost, and the members opposite talk about a code of ethics! They must be joking.
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.