❓ A parliamentary question regarding the WA government's election promise to reduce rental costs for teachers in regional areas, focusing on discrepancies in projected costs and implementation timelines.
AnsweredQoN 497Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
teachers — RENT REDUCTIONS IN regional AREAS
Thanks, Mr President, for the call—I do say that sincerely. Several members interjected. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : No, I thought that he might have jumped me this time, but it is good that he has not. I refer to the government’s election commitment to reduce rental costs for teachers in regional and rural areas and to the answer given by the minister representing the Minister for Education on 31 March 2009. (1) Is the minister aware that the figures provided for the cost of the election promise for rental subsidies to teachers in regional areas showed a projected rise of only 12.5 per cent between 2009 and 2013? (2) Is it true that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service, and that by 2013 the majority of teachers in regional areas would have been eligible for free rent? (3) Is it correct that full implementation of the promise would cost approximately $13 million by 2013 rather than the figure of $7 284 690 provided by the minister? (4) If the figures the minister provided indicate that the government had already determined to break this promise, when was that decision taken? (5) Did the minister provide incorrect figures; and, if so, why? Hon PETER COLLIER
Thanks, Mr President, for the call—I do say that sincerely. Several members interjected. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : No, I thought that he might have jumped me this time, but it is good that he has not. I refer to the government’s election commitment to reduce rental costs for teachers in regional and rural areas and to the answer given by the minister representing the Minister for Education on 31 March 2009. (1) Is the minister aware that the figures provided for the cost of the election promise for rental subsidies to teachers in regional areas showed a projected rise of only 12.5 per cent between 2009 and 2013? (2) Is it true that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service, and that by 2013 the majority of teachers in regional areas would have been eligible for free rent? (3) Is it correct that full implementation of the promise would cost approximately $13 million by 2013 rather than the figure of $7 284 690 provided by the minister? (4) If the figures the minister provided indicate that the government had already determined to break this promise, when was that decision taken? (5) Did the minister provide incorrect figures; and, if so, why? Hon PETER COLLIER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
Several members interjected. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : No, I thought that he might have jumped me this time, but it is good that he has not. I refer to the government’s election commitment to reduce rental costs for teachers in regional and rural areas and to the answer given by the minister representing the Minister for Education on 31 March 2009. (1) Is the minister aware that the figures provided for the cost of the election promise for rental subsidies to teachers in regional areas showed a projected rise of only 12.5 per cent between 2009 and 2013? (2) Is it true that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service, and that by 2013 the majority of teachers in regional areas would have been eligible for free rent? (3) Is it correct that full implementation of the promise would cost approximately $13 million by 2013 rather than the figure of $7 284 690 provided by the minister? (4) If the figures the minister provided indicate that the government had already determined to break this promise, when was that decision taken? (5) Did the minister provide incorrect figures; and, if so, why? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : No, I thought that he might have jumped me this time, but it is good that he has not. I refer to the government’s election commitment to reduce rental costs for teachers in regional and rural areas and to the answer given by the minister representing the Minister for Education on 31 March 2009. (1) Is the minister aware that the figures provided for the cost of the election promise for rental subsidies to teachers in regional areas showed a projected rise of only 12.5 per cent between 2009 and 2013? (2) Is it true that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service, and that by 2013 the majority of teachers in regional areas would have been eligible for free rent? (3) Is it correct that full implementation of the promise would cost approximately $13 million by 2013 rather than the figure of $7 284 690 provided by the minister? (4) If the figures the minister provided indicate that the government had already determined to break this promise, when was that decision taken? (5) Did the minister provide incorrect figures; and, if so, why? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
I refer to the government’s election commitment to reduce rental costs for teachers in regional and rural areas and to the answer given by the minister representing the Minister for Education on 31 March 2009. (1) Is the minister aware that the figures provided for the cost of the election promise for rental subsidies to teachers in regional areas showed a projected rise of only 12.5 per cent between 2009 and 2013? (2) Is it true that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service, and that by 2013 the majority of teachers in regional areas would have been eligible for free rent? (3) Is it correct that full implementation of the promise would cost approximately $13 million by 2013 rather than the figure of $7 284 690 provided by the minister? (4) If the figures the minister provided indicate that the government had already determined to break this promise, when was that decision taken? (5) Did the minister provide incorrect figures; and, if so, why? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(1) Is the minister aware that the figures provided for the cost of the election promise for rental subsidies to teachers in regional areas showed a projected rise of only 12.5 per cent between 2009 and 2013? (2) Is it true that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service, and that by 2013 the majority of teachers in regional areas would have been eligible for free rent? (3) Is it correct that full implementation of the promise would cost approximately $13 million by 2013 rather than the figure of $7 284 690 provided by the minister? (4) If the figures the minister provided indicate that the government had already determined to break this promise, when was that decision taken? (5) Did the minister provide incorrect figures; and, if so, why? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(2) Is it true that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service, and that by 2013 the majority of teachers in regional areas would have been eligible for free rent? (3) Is it correct that full implementation of the promise would cost approximately $13 million by 2013 rather than the figure of $7 284 690 provided by the minister? (4) If the figures the minister provided indicate that the government had already determined to break this promise, when was that decision taken? (5) Did the minister provide incorrect figures; and, if so, why? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(3) Is it correct that full implementation of the promise would cost approximately $13 million by 2013 rather than the figure of $7 284 690 provided by the minister? (4) If the figures the minister provided indicate that the government had already determined to break this promise, when was that decision taken? (5) Did the minister provide incorrect figures; and, if so, why? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(4) If the figures the minister provided indicate that the government had already determined to break this promise, when was that decision taken? (5) Did the minister provide incorrect figures; and, if so, why? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(5) Did the minister provide incorrect figures; and, if so, why? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(5) No.
Several members interjected. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : No, I thought that he might have jumped me this time, but it is good that he has not. I refer to the government’s election commitment to reduce rental costs for teachers in regional and rural areas and to the answer given by the minister representing the Minister for Education on 31 March 2009. (1) Is the minister aware that the figures provided for the cost of the election promise for rental subsidies to teachers in regional areas showed a projected rise of only 12.5 per cent between 2009 and 2013? (2) Is it true that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service, and that by 2013 the majority of teachers in regional areas would have been eligible for free rent? (3) Is it correct that full implementation of the promise would cost approximately $13 million by 2013 rather than the figure of $7 284 690 provided by the minister? (4) If the figures the minister provided indicate that the government had already determined to break this promise, when was that decision taken? (5) Did the minister provide incorrect figures; and, if so, why? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH : No, I thought that he might have jumped me this time, but it is good that he has not. I refer to the government’s election commitment to reduce rental costs for teachers in regional and rural areas and to the answer given by the minister representing the Minister for Education on 31 March 2009. (1) Is the minister aware that the figures provided for the cost of the election promise for rental subsidies to teachers in regional areas showed a projected rise of only 12.5 per cent between 2009 and 2013? (2) Is it true that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service, and that by 2013 the majority of teachers in regional areas would have been eligible for free rent? (3) Is it correct that full implementation of the promise would cost approximately $13 million by 2013 rather than the figure of $7 284 690 provided by the minister? (4) If the figures the minister provided indicate that the government had already determined to break this promise, when was that decision taken? (5) Did the minister provide incorrect figures; and, if so, why? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
I refer to the government’s election commitment to reduce rental costs for teachers in regional and rural areas and to the answer given by the minister representing the Minister for Education on 31 March 2009. (1) Is the minister aware that the figures provided for the cost of the election promise for rental subsidies to teachers in regional areas showed a projected rise of only 12.5 per cent between 2009 and 2013? (2) Is it true that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service, and that by 2013 the majority of teachers in regional areas would have been eligible for free rent? (3) Is it correct that full implementation of the promise would cost approximately $13 million by 2013 rather than the figure of $7 284 690 provided by the minister? (4) If the figures the minister provided indicate that the government had already determined to break this promise, when was that decision taken? (5) Did the minister provide incorrect figures; and, if so, why? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(1) Is the minister aware that the figures provided for the cost of the election promise for rental subsidies to teachers in regional areas showed a projected rise of only 12.5 per cent between 2009 and 2013? (2) Is it true that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service, and that by 2013 the majority of teachers in regional areas would have been eligible for free rent? (3) Is it correct that full implementation of the promise would cost approximately $13 million by 2013 rather than the figure of $7 284 690 provided by the minister? (4) If the figures the minister provided indicate that the government had already determined to break this promise, when was that decision taken? (5) Did the minister provide incorrect figures; and, if so, why? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(2) Is it true that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service, and that by 2013 the majority of teachers in regional areas would have been eligible for free rent? (3) Is it correct that full implementation of the promise would cost approximately $13 million by 2013 rather than the figure of $7 284 690 provided by the minister? (4) If the figures the minister provided indicate that the government had already determined to break this promise, when was that decision taken? (5) Did the minister provide incorrect figures; and, if so, why? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(3) Is it correct that full implementation of the promise would cost approximately $13 million by 2013 rather than the figure of $7 284 690 provided by the minister? (4) If the figures the minister provided indicate that the government had already determined to break this promise, when was that decision taken? (5) Did the minister provide incorrect figures; and, if so, why? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(4) If the figures the minister provided indicate that the government had already determined to break this promise, when was that decision taken? (5) Did the minister provide incorrect figures; and, if so, why? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(5) Did the minister provide incorrect figures; and, if so, why? Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
Hon PETER COLLIER replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. On behalf of the Minister for Education, I provide the following response — (1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(1) Yes. (2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(2) Yes. It is the case that the promised subsidy was to be staged at 50 per cent after one year, 75 per cent after two years and 100 per cent after three years of continuous country service. It is not the case that the majority of teachers in regional areas would be eligible for free rent after 2013, based on the fact that in 2008 only 30 per cent of teachers were in a tenancy of four years or longer. (3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(3) No. The estimated cost provided in the answer to question without notice 300 is correct as it is based on the additional cost for the implementation of this program—that is, the cost above the $30.65 million currently being spent in rental subsidies. The figure is based on estimated numbers of teachers who will be eligible for free rental after three years’ continuous country service. Teachers in country housing would still pay rent in the first three years. (4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(4) Not applicable. (5) No.
(5) No.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.