❓ Question regarding the Minister's awareness of an article in the Australian Financial Review and its impact on his previous comments about a telecommunications inquiry. The Minister confirms awareness and uses the article to support his prior statements, criticising the opposition.
AnsweredQoN 172Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to an article in The Australian Financial Review dated 18 September 2002, and ask - (1) Is the minister aware of the article? (2) To what extent does the article confirm or detract from the minister’s previous comments about the telecommunications inquiry? Mr C.M. BROWN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Members may recall that the telecommunications inquiry was the subject of a question from the member for Kimberley on 20 August 2002, when I made a number of comments about the problems concerning that inquiry. At the time I said- The committee - The federal committee - has been given a very short time frame in which to investigate. If the Commonwealth Government intended the inquiry to be done correctly, it would have extended that time frame. It would also have allowed the committee to travel to rural and regional Western Australia to talk to people about what services are not being provided. At the time those comments received a lot of criticism. About a month later, on 18 September, I was pleased to read some supporting comments. I will read to the House an extract of an article that appeared in The Australian Financial Review on that day. The comments are not to be dismissed lightly. The article states - Queensland National Party president Terry Bolger raised questions about the validity of the inquiry, claiming that its timing was too short and that it should be holding public hearings. The National Party Opposition leader Mike Horan agreed the three-person investigating team must visit rural and regional areas. What a surprise! I am very pleased that although the Liberal and National Parties in this State did not support my comments, the National Party president and Opposition leader from the State that has drawn the chairperson of the inquiry have supported the very comments I made about this inquiry more than a month ago. Members opposite do not like to hear when they are out of step and have missed the point. They simply have not got it, but they can read it in The Australian Financial Review . It is very clear. I suggest they get some English lessons so that they can understand the words over four syllables and comprehend what is being said. The report shows that I was absolutely right in making those comments and that the Opposition and the National Party were absolutely wrong.
(1) Is the minister aware of the article? (2) To what extent does the article confirm or detract from the minister’s previous comments about the telecommunications inquiry? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Members may recall that the telecommunications inquiry was the subject of a question from the member for Kimberley on 20 August 2002, when I made a number of comments about the problems concerning that inquiry. At the time I said- The committee - The federal committee - has been given a very short time frame in which to investigate. If the Commonwealth Government intended the inquiry to be done correctly, it would have extended that time frame. It would also have allowed the committee to travel to rural and regional Western Australia to talk to people about what services are not being provided. At the time those comments received a lot of criticism. About a month later, on 18 September, I was pleased to read some supporting comments. I will read to the House an extract of an article that appeared in The Australian Financial Review on that day. The comments are not to be dismissed lightly. The article states - Queensland National Party president Terry Bolger raised questions about the validity of the inquiry, claiming that its timing was too short and that it should be holding public hearings. The National Party Opposition leader Mike Horan agreed the three-person investigating team must visit rural and regional areas. What a surprise! I am very pleased that although the Liberal and National Parties in this State did not support my comments, the National Party president and Opposition leader from the State that has drawn the chairperson of the inquiry have supported the very comments I made about this inquiry more than a month ago. Members opposite do not like to hear when they are out of step and have missed the point. They simply have not got it, but they can read it in The Australian Financial Review . It is very clear. I suggest they get some English lessons so that they can understand the words over four syllables and comprehend what is being said. The report shows that I was absolutely right in making those comments and that the Opposition and the National Party were absolutely wrong.
(2) To what extent does the article confirm or detract from the minister’s previous comments about the telecommunications inquiry? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Members may recall that the telecommunications inquiry was the subject of a question from the member for Kimberley on 20 August 2002, when I made a number of comments about the problems concerning that inquiry. At the time I said- The committee - The federal committee - has been given a very short time frame in which to investigate. If the Commonwealth Government intended the inquiry to be done correctly, it would have extended that time frame. It would also have allowed the committee to travel to rural and regional Western Australia to talk to people about what services are not being provided. At the time those comments received a lot of criticism. About a month later, on 18 September, I was pleased to read some supporting comments. I will read to the House an extract of an article that appeared in The Australian Financial Review on that day. The comments are not to be dismissed lightly. The article states - Queensland National Party president Terry Bolger raised questions about the validity of the inquiry, claiming that its timing was too short and that it should be holding public hearings. The National Party Opposition leader Mike Horan agreed the three-person investigating team must visit rural and regional areas. What a surprise! I am very pleased that although the Liberal and National Parties in this State did not support my comments, the National Party president and Opposition leader from the State that has drawn the chairperson of the inquiry have supported the very comments I made about this inquiry more than a month ago. Members opposite do not like to hear when they are out of step and have missed the point. They simply have not got it, but they can read it in The Australian Financial Review . It is very clear. I suggest they get some English lessons so that they can understand the words over four syllables and comprehend what is being said. The report shows that I was absolutely right in making those comments and that the Opposition and the National Party were absolutely wrong.
Mr C.M. BROWN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Members may recall that the telecommunications inquiry was the subject of a question from the member for Kimberley on 20 August 2002, when I made a number of comments about the problems concerning that inquiry. At the time I said- The committee - The federal committee - has been given a very short time frame in which to investigate. If the Commonwealth Government intended the inquiry to be done correctly, it would have extended that time frame. It would also have allowed the committee to travel to rural and regional Western Australia to talk to people about what services are not being provided. At the time those comments received a lot of criticism. About a month later, on 18 September, I was pleased to read some supporting comments. I will read to the House an extract of an article that appeared in The Australian Financial Review on that day. The comments are not to be dismissed lightly. The article states - Queensland National Party president Terry Bolger raised questions about the validity of the inquiry, claiming that its timing was too short and that it should be holding public hearings. The National Party Opposition leader Mike Horan agreed the three-person investigating team must visit rural and regional areas. What a surprise! I am very pleased that although the Liberal and National Parties in this State did not support my comments, the National Party president and Opposition leader from the State that has drawn the chairperson of the inquiry have supported the very comments I made about this inquiry more than a month ago. Members opposite do not like to hear when they are out of step and have missed the point. They simply have not got it, but they can read it in The Australian Financial Review . It is very clear. I suggest they get some English lessons so that they can understand the words over four syllables and comprehend what is being said. The report shows that I was absolutely right in making those comments and that the Opposition and the National Party were absolutely wrong.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Members may recall that the telecommunications inquiry was the subject of a question from the member for Kimberley on 20 August 2002, when I made a number of comments about the problems concerning that inquiry. At the time I said- The committee - The federal committee - has been given a very short time frame in which to investigate. If the Commonwealth Government intended the inquiry to be done correctly, it would have extended that time frame. It would also have allowed the committee to travel to rural and regional Western Australia to talk to people about what services are not being provided. At the time those comments received a lot of criticism. About a month later, on 18 September, I was pleased to read some supporting comments. I will read to the House an extract of an article that appeared in The Australian Financial Review on that day. The comments are not to be dismissed lightly. The article states - Queensland National Party president Terry Bolger raised questions about the validity of the inquiry, claiming that its timing was too short and that it should be holding public hearings. The National Party Opposition leader Mike Horan agreed the three-person investigating team must visit rural and regional areas. What a surprise! I am very pleased that although the Liberal and National Parties in this State did not support my comments, the National Party president and Opposition leader from the State that has drawn the chairperson of the inquiry have supported the very comments I made about this inquiry more than a month ago. Members opposite do not like to hear when they are out of step and have missed the point. They simply have not got it, but they can read it in The Australian Financial Review . It is very clear. I suggest they get some English lessons so that they can understand the words over four syllables and comprehend what is being said. The report shows that I was absolutely right in making those comments and that the Opposition and the National Party were absolutely wrong.
(1)-(2) Members may recall that the telecommunications inquiry was the subject of a question from the member for Kimberley on 20 August 2002, when I made a number of comments about the problems concerning that inquiry. At the time I said- The committee - The federal committee - has been given a very short time frame in which to investigate. If the Commonwealth Government intended the inquiry to be done correctly, it would have extended that time frame. It would also have allowed the committee to travel to rural and regional Western Australia to talk to people about what services are not being provided. At the time those comments received a lot of criticism. About a month later, on 18 September, I was pleased to read some supporting comments. I will read to the House an extract of an article that appeared in The Australian Financial Review on that day. The comments are not to be dismissed lightly. The article states - Queensland National Party president Terry Bolger raised questions about the validity of the inquiry, claiming that its timing was too short and that it should be holding public hearings. The National Party Opposition leader Mike Horan agreed the three-person investigating team must visit rural and regional areas. What a surprise! I am very pleased that although the Liberal and National Parties in this State did not support my comments, the National Party president and Opposition leader from the State that has drawn the chairperson of the inquiry have supported the very comments I made about this inquiry more than a month ago. Members opposite do not like to hear when they are out of step and have missed the point. They simply have not got it, but they can read it in The Australian Financial Review . It is very clear. I suggest they get some English lessons so that they can understand the words over four syllables and comprehend what is being said. The report shows that I was absolutely right in making those comments and that the Opposition and the National Party were absolutely wrong.
The National Party Opposition leader Mike Horan agreed the three-person investigating team must visit rural and regional areas.
(1) Is the minister aware of the article? (2) To what extent does the article confirm or detract from the minister’s previous comments about the telecommunications inquiry? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Members may recall that the telecommunications inquiry was the subject of a question from the member for Kimberley on 20 August 2002, when I made a number of comments about the problems concerning that inquiry. At the time I said- The committee - The federal committee - has been given a very short time frame in which to investigate. If the Commonwealth Government intended the inquiry to be done correctly, it would have extended that time frame. It would also have allowed the committee to travel to rural and regional Western Australia to talk to people about what services are not being provided. At the time those comments received a lot of criticism. About a month later, on 18 September, I was pleased to read some supporting comments. I will read to the House an extract of an article that appeared in The Australian Financial Review on that day. The comments are not to be dismissed lightly. The article states - Queensland National Party president Terry Bolger raised questions about the validity of the inquiry, claiming that its timing was too short and that it should be holding public hearings. The National Party Opposition leader Mike Horan agreed the three-person investigating team must visit rural and regional areas. What a surprise! I am very pleased that although the Liberal and National Parties in this State did not support my comments, the National Party president and Opposition leader from the State that has drawn the chairperson of the inquiry have supported the very comments I made about this inquiry more than a month ago. Members opposite do not like to hear when they are out of step and have missed the point. They simply have not got it, but they can read it in The Australian Financial Review . It is very clear. I suggest they get some English lessons so that they can understand the words over four syllables and comprehend what is being said. The report shows that I was absolutely right in making those comments and that the Opposition and the National Party were absolutely wrong.
(2) To what extent does the article confirm or detract from the minister’s previous comments about the telecommunications inquiry? Mr C.M. BROWN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Members may recall that the telecommunications inquiry was the subject of a question from the member for Kimberley on 20 August 2002, when I made a number of comments about the problems concerning that inquiry. At the time I said- The committee - The federal committee - has been given a very short time frame in which to investigate. If the Commonwealth Government intended the inquiry to be done correctly, it would have extended that time frame. It would also have allowed the committee to travel to rural and regional Western Australia to talk to people about what services are not being provided. At the time those comments received a lot of criticism. About a month later, on 18 September, I was pleased to read some supporting comments. I will read to the House an extract of an article that appeared in The Australian Financial Review on that day. The comments are not to be dismissed lightly. The article states - Queensland National Party president Terry Bolger raised questions about the validity of the inquiry, claiming that its timing was too short and that it should be holding public hearings. The National Party Opposition leader Mike Horan agreed the three-person investigating team must visit rural and regional areas. What a surprise! I am very pleased that although the Liberal and National Parties in this State did not support my comments, the National Party president and Opposition leader from the State that has drawn the chairperson of the inquiry have supported the very comments I made about this inquiry more than a month ago. Members opposite do not like to hear when they are out of step and have missed the point. They simply have not got it, but they can read it in The Australian Financial Review . It is very clear. I suggest they get some English lessons so that they can understand the words over four syllables and comprehend what is being said. The report shows that I was absolutely right in making those comments and that the Opposition and the National Party were absolutely wrong.
Mr C.M. BROWN replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Members may recall that the telecommunications inquiry was the subject of a question from the member for Kimberley on 20 August 2002, when I made a number of comments about the problems concerning that inquiry. At the time I said- The committee - The federal committee - has been given a very short time frame in which to investigate. If the Commonwealth Government intended the inquiry to be done correctly, it would have extended that time frame. It would also have allowed the committee to travel to rural and regional Western Australia to talk to people about what services are not being provided. At the time those comments received a lot of criticism. About a month later, on 18 September, I was pleased to read some supporting comments. I will read to the House an extract of an article that appeared in The Australian Financial Review on that day. The comments are not to be dismissed lightly. The article states - Queensland National Party president Terry Bolger raised questions about the validity of the inquiry, claiming that its timing was too short and that it should be holding public hearings. The National Party Opposition leader Mike Horan agreed the three-person investigating team must visit rural and regional areas. What a surprise! I am very pleased that although the Liberal and National Parties in this State did not support my comments, the National Party president and Opposition leader from the State that has drawn the chairperson of the inquiry have supported the very comments I made about this inquiry more than a month ago. Members opposite do not like to hear when they are out of step and have missed the point. They simply have not got it, but they can read it in The Australian Financial Review . It is very clear. I suggest they get some English lessons so that they can understand the words over four syllables and comprehend what is being said. The report shows that I was absolutely right in making those comments and that the Opposition and the National Party were absolutely wrong.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Members may recall that the telecommunications inquiry was the subject of a question from the member for Kimberley on 20 August 2002, when I made a number of comments about the problems concerning that inquiry. At the time I said- The committee - The federal committee - has been given a very short time frame in which to investigate. If the Commonwealth Government intended the inquiry to be done correctly, it would have extended that time frame. It would also have allowed the committee to travel to rural and regional Western Australia to talk to people about what services are not being provided. At the time those comments received a lot of criticism. About a month later, on 18 September, I was pleased to read some supporting comments. I will read to the House an extract of an article that appeared in The Australian Financial Review on that day. The comments are not to be dismissed lightly. The article states - Queensland National Party president Terry Bolger raised questions about the validity of the inquiry, claiming that its timing was too short and that it should be holding public hearings. The National Party Opposition leader Mike Horan agreed the three-person investigating team must visit rural and regional areas. What a surprise! I am very pleased that although the Liberal and National Parties in this State did not support my comments, the National Party president and Opposition leader from the State that has drawn the chairperson of the inquiry have supported the very comments I made about this inquiry more than a month ago. Members opposite do not like to hear when they are out of step and have missed the point. They simply have not got it, but they can read it in The Australian Financial Review . It is very clear. I suggest they get some English lessons so that they can understand the words over four syllables and comprehend what is being said. The report shows that I was absolutely right in making those comments and that the Opposition and the National Party were absolutely wrong.
(1)-(2) Members may recall that the telecommunications inquiry was the subject of a question from the member for Kimberley on 20 August 2002, when I made a number of comments about the problems concerning that inquiry. At the time I said- The committee - The federal committee - has been given a very short time frame in which to investigate. If the Commonwealth Government intended the inquiry to be done correctly, it would have extended that time frame. It would also have allowed the committee to travel to rural and regional Western Australia to talk to people about what services are not being provided. At the time those comments received a lot of criticism. About a month later, on 18 September, I was pleased to read some supporting comments. I will read to the House an extract of an article that appeared in The Australian Financial Review on that day. The comments are not to be dismissed lightly. The article states - Queensland National Party president Terry Bolger raised questions about the validity of the inquiry, claiming that its timing was too short and that it should be holding public hearings. The National Party Opposition leader Mike Horan agreed the three-person investigating team must visit rural and regional areas. What a surprise! I am very pleased that although the Liberal and National Parties in this State did not support my comments, the National Party president and Opposition leader from the State that has drawn the chairperson of the inquiry have supported the very comments I made about this inquiry more than a month ago. Members opposite do not like to hear when they are out of step and have missed the point. They simply have not got it, but they can read it in The Australian Financial Review . It is very clear. I suggest they get some English lessons so that they can understand the words over four syllables and comprehend what is being said. The report shows that I was absolutely right in making those comments and that the Opposition and the National Party were absolutely wrong.
The National Party Opposition leader Mike Horan agreed the three-person investigating team must visit rural and regional areas.
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.