❓ Opposition questions the Premier regarding the Keelty report on the Roleystone-Kelmscott bushfires, specifically concerning the Premier's office's awareness and actions related to FESA's response to the report. The Premier defends the independence of the report and the process followed.
AnsweredQoN 545Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ROLEYSTONE–KELMSCOTT BUSHFIRES — KEELTY REPORT — PREMIER’S OFFICE
Before I ask my question I welcome students from Our Lady of Lourdes School in Nollamara, on behalf of my colleague the member for Nollamara. Given that the Public Sector Commissioner requested that the Fire and Emergency Services Authority develop a response document to the Keelty report, and that response was received by him on 22 June — (1) When did the Public Sector Commissioner make the Premier’s office aware of this document? (2) Given that the Minister for Emergency Services has just told the house that his office sent the document to the Premier’s office in July, what exactly did the Premier’s office do with the document when it was received? (3) Was either this document or the substance of FESA’s serious criticisms of the Keelty inquiry ever presented to cabinet before cabinet endorsed the findings and recommendations of the Keelty report? Mr C.J. BARNETT
Before I ask my question I welcome students from Our Lady of Lourdes School in Nollamara, on behalf of my colleague the member for Nollamara. Given that the Public Sector Commissioner requested that the Fire and Emergency Services Authority develop a response document to the Keelty report, and that response was received by him on 22 June — (1) When did the Public Sector Commissioner make the Premier’s office aware of this document? (2) Given that the Minister for Emergency Services has just told the house that his office sent the document to the Premier’s office in July, what exactly did the Premier’s office do with the document when it was received? (3) Was either this document or the substance of FESA’s serious criticisms of the Keelty inquiry ever presented to cabinet before cabinet endorsed the findings and recommendations of the Keelty report? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(3) I think I answered a very similar question last week, but I will answer it again. Mr E.S. Ripper : We didn’t know about this report last week. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Given that the Public Sector Commissioner requested that the Fire and Emergency Services Authority develop a response document to the Keelty report, and that response was received by him on 22 June — (1) When did the Public Sector Commissioner make the Premier’s office aware of this document? (2) Given that the Minister for Emergency Services has just told the house that his office sent the document to the Premier’s office in July, what exactly did the Premier’s office do with the document when it was received? (3) Was either this document or the substance of FESA’s serious criticisms of the Keelty inquiry ever presented to cabinet before cabinet endorsed the findings and recommendations of the Keelty report? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I think I answered a very similar question last week, but I will answer it again. Mr E.S. Ripper : We didn’t know about this report last week. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
(1) When did the Public Sector Commissioner make the Premier’s office aware of this document? (2) Given that the Minister for Emergency Services has just told the house that his office sent the document to the Premier’s office in July, what exactly did the Premier’s office do with the document when it was received? (3) Was either this document or the substance of FESA’s serious criticisms of the Keelty inquiry ever presented to cabinet before cabinet endorsed the findings and recommendations of the Keelty report? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I think I answered a very similar question last week, but I will answer it again. Mr E.S. Ripper : We didn’t know about this report last week. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
(2) Given that the Minister for Emergency Services has just told the house that his office sent the document to the Premier’s office in July, what exactly did the Premier’s office do with the document when it was received? (3) Was either this document or the substance of FESA’s serious criticisms of the Keelty inquiry ever presented to cabinet before cabinet endorsed the findings and recommendations of the Keelty report? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I think I answered a very similar question last week, but I will answer it again. Mr E.S. Ripper : We didn’t know about this report last week. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
(3) Was either this document or the substance of FESA’s serious criticisms of the Keelty inquiry ever presented to cabinet before cabinet endorsed the findings and recommendations of the Keelty report? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I think I answered a very similar question last week, but I will answer it again. Mr E.S. Ripper : We didn’t know about this report last week. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I think I answered a very similar question last week, but I will answer it again. Mr E.S. Ripper : We didn’t know about this report last week. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
(1)–(3) I think I answered a very similar question last week, but I will answer it again. Mr E.S. Ripper : We didn’t know about this report last week. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr E.S. Ripper : We didn’t know about this report last week. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Given that the Public Sector Commissioner requested that the Fire and Emergency Services Authority develop a response document to the Keelty report, and that response was received by him on 22 June — (1) When did the Public Sector Commissioner make the Premier’s office aware of this document? (2) Given that the Minister for Emergency Services has just told the house that his office sent the document to the Premier’s office in July, what exactly did the Premier’s office do with the document when it was received? (3) Was either this document or the substance of FESA’s serious criticisms of the Keelty inquiry ever presented to cabinet before cabinet endorsed the findings and recommendations of the Keelty report? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I think I answered a very similar question last week, but I will answer it again. Mr E.S. Ripper : We didn’t know about this report last week. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
(1) When did the Public Sector Commissioner make the Premier’s office aware of this document? (2) Given that the Minister for Emergency Services has just told the house that his office sent the document to the Premier’s office in July, what exactly did the Premier’s office do with the document when it was received? (3) Was either this document or the substance of FESA’s serious criticisms of the Keelty inquiry ever presented to cabinet before cabinet endorsed the findings and recommendations of the Keelty report? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I think I answered a very similar question last week, but I will answer it again. Mr E.S. Ripper : We didn’t know about this report last week. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
(2) Given that the Minister for Emergency Services has just told the house that his office sent the document to the Premier’s office in July, what exactly did the Premier’s office do with the document when it was received? (3) Was either this document or the substance of FESA’s serious criticisms of the Keelty inquiry ever presented to cabinet before cabinet endorsed the findings and recommendations of the Keelty report? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I think I answered a very similar question last week, but I will answer it again. Mr E.S. Ripper : We didn’t know about this report last week. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
(3) Was either this document or the substance of FESA’s serious criticisms of the Keelty inquiry ever presented to cabinet before cabinet endorsed the findings and recommendations of the Keelty report? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I think I answered a very similar question last week, but I will answer it again. Mr E.S. Ripper : We didn’t know about this report last week. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)–(3) I think I answered a very similar question last week, but I will answer it again. Mr E.S. Ripper : We didn’t know about this report last week. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
(1)–(3) I think I answered a very similar question last week, but I will answer it again. Mr E.S. Ripper : We didn’t know about this report last week. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr E.S. Ripper : We didn’t know about this report last week. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The Keelty inquiry was set up under the Public Sector Management Act with, effectively, the powers of a royal commission. Being set up that way, as was appropriate, it was an independent inquiry and an independent report. Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr E.S. Ripper : This is after the report was received. Don’t mislead us; just tell the truth. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am telling the truth. The Leader of the Opposition needs to listen. It is an independent report. When it was received by the Public Sector Commissioner in June, because it did not come to me or go to cabinet—it went to the Public Sector Commissioner because he, on behalf of the government, had instigated the report—he referred it to special counsel, Robert Cock, QC, to read through, which he did — Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr E.S. Ripper : He works in your office, doesn’t he? Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No, he does not. Robert Cock worked through it and made the point to the Public Sector Commissioner that because some claims and assertions were made about individuals and organisations, natural justice would require that they have the opportunity of reading the report before it went — Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Ms M.M. Quirk : And commenting on it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker! The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
The SPEAKER : Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Again, I have lost my train of thought. Because it was sent — An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
An opposition member interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat this topic seriously, because it is a serious issue. The report was sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Commissioner of Police, FESA and the Department of Environment and Conservation on the grounds of natural justice. It was not an opportunity for them to redo their submissions and have a second go. It was not. Natural justice gave them the opportunity to respond — Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes, that’s what they do. The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
The SPEAKER : Member for Girrawheen! Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, this is absurd. It was not an opportunity for FESA, DEC, the police commissioner, the minister or anyone else to make a submission or revise their submission or the like. FESA—in fact, all four in their responses to the Public Sector Commission—expressed their support for the recommendations. It is true that FESA also added a whole lot of detail and basically, in my view, had a second go at its submission. That was not open to them. The report had been finalised. The only things that Mr Keelty took on board were some grammatical corrections and very minor technical — Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr M. McGowan : So he did change it. Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : It is acknowledged in the report. Some of them put in commas. It is a very minor, trivial grammatical — Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You haven’t answered question (1). Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will not answer any of them if the Leader of the Opposition does not listen. Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Several members interjected. Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am trying to treat it seriously, and members opposite are not. Members opposite are not treating this seriously. On natural justice grounds, did they feel aggrieved, did they feel wronged—whatever; the lawyers can explain that better to me. It came back to Mr Wauchope, as Public Sector Commissioner. After that process, not before, he forwarded the copy of the Keelty report to my office, and he attached those responses. Mr Speaker, that is quite appropriate. The point is, it was not open to FESA, to the minister, to the police commissioner, to DEC or to anyone else to alter the report or call for the report to be altered. Indeed, that would have been quite improper. It was not open to me or to cabinet to call on the report to be altered. It was, under the law, an independent report. And the report that was given to those four parties on grounds of natural justice was then and still is today the final report, and it is that report and all its recommendations that the government has accepted. It is that report that we have acted upon. That is it. It was not an opportunity for FESA or anyone else to have a new submission. Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr E.S. Ripper : So what did you do? And was cabinet made aware of these things? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not discussing cabinet, but I will tell the Leader of the Opposition this — Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr E.S. Ripper : The government makes a decision and you won’t say whether or not cabinet was aware of these criticisms. Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : No; you just interrupt too much. The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the Opposition! I will give you the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. I am not at this point going to give you the opportunity to continually interrupt. I formally call you to order for the first time. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I conclude: FESA had made its points to the Public Sector Commission. It used the opportunity to virtually have a second go at a submission. By that stage, the report was final. The only adjustments that were made to it were, as I have said, some minor clerical matters. The report stayed in its final form. That is its status. That is what cabinet considered. That is all cabinet should ever have considered. That is the way that we conducted the affair.
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.