❓ The Minister refutes claims of a 10% budget cut to the Police Service, citing an increase in the recurrent budget and challenging the source of the Opposition's information. The Commissioner of Police also denies issuing any direction for a 10% cut.
AnsweredQoN 162Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
The member for Midland stated that the operational budget of the Police Service is to be slashed by 10 per cent and that the service itself will be diminished as a result. Can the minister inform the House of the true position of the Police Service’s operational budget? Mr PRINCE
AnswerView source ↗
With pleasure. Yesterday the member for Midland asked me a question and subsequently issued a press release, a copy of which I have in my hand. In it, among other things, she said - The Opposition has been told the service’s six Assistant Commissioners have been advised that the Police Service’s operational budget, which covers the service’s day-to-day running costs, is to be slashed by ten per cent. I appreciate a contradiction by me of the member for Midland is not likely to go too far. However, this morning the Commissioner of Police, when interviewed on radio by Mr Bartlett of the ABC and asked if that was true, said - No . . . it’s interesting that I’m the one that’s supposed to have told them to cut, that’s not true at all. I’ve actually read the release by Michelle Roberts, it actually doesn’t quite indicate that there has been any direction of a 10% cut or that there has been a cut at all, so one would have to say . . . where’s the document that Michelle Roberts is, in fact, quoting from because nobody here knows what she’s talking about. Mr Bartlett then asked - So you’re questioning her facts? Mr Matthews said - Well, I’m questioning the basis that she says there’s a document that I’m supposed to have put out, because I don’t have any knowledge of it. We’ve asked around here as to, has anybody talked about a 10% cut and nobody has any knowledge of that. So, yes, I firstly would say where’s this apparent direction that I or somebody else has given there because I’d like to see it because we’re a bit puzzled. Mr Bartlett then said - Commissioner, it says - Mr Bartlett then quotes the press release as follows - Superintendents have been requested to develop strategies to cope with the savage funding cuts . . . Mr Matthews said - . . . can I just put that into a little bit of what I think is a factual situation? Mr Bartlett asked - Is there any truth in that at all? The answer is - No there’s not . . . but let me just . . . explain . . . Last year our recurrent operational budget, which includes salaries, was just over 385m . . . or in fact, almost 384 million; this year we’ve got 395 million so we’ve actually had an increase of 2.5% over and above what we got last year. Mr PRINCE: We have tried to find the origin for this so-called 10 per cent, which is further referred to in the press release of the member for Midland in which she says it is understood that the southern region, which includes Kalgoorlie, Mandurah and Bunbury, will lose $70 000 out of its budget of $700 000. That was also put to the commissioner by Mr Bartlett and the commissioner said - . . . I would expect that to be the case because we are, in fact, making changes there in terms of both Kalgoorlie and Mandurah, are in fact, going to be shifting through to Perth. Mr Bartlett said - Well, that is a 10% cut, isn’t it, maybe that’s where she got her figure from? Mr Matthews said - . . . I don’t know where she’s got it from. As I said, whether there’s any basis to it is a bit doubtful, but in any event, because we are shifting these regional headquarters through to Perth there, one of the reasons for doing that, there’s greater efficiencies both in terms of how we do the job and also in terms of savings . . . He then said that money will then be distributed across the whole of the portfolio. Mr Bartlett said in summary - So all these claims are nothing? The Commissioner of Police said - . . . I would challenge Michelle Roberts to send me the . . . alleged direction that I’m or somebody else is supposed to have given . . . that talks about 10%. . . . we don’t know where it’s come from, I want to see where it is, if she’s got it and what she says is true. The member for Quigley is making it up again because her sources have more imagination than facts. The fact is that the 2000-01 recurrent budget is $395.6m. That is $124m more than the member for Midland’s last Government provided. In 2000-01, the recurrent budget is $9m greater than in 1999-2000. Mrs ROBERTS interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Midland to order for the first time. Mr PRINCE: Since coming to office, this Government has spent, as indicated in the index figures, $2.8b in recurrent funding on Police. The Government will spend $208 per head in this current financial year, which compares to an equivalent figure of $160 in Labor's last year in office. The member for Midland has got it wrong. She accepted totally incorrect information from the member for Quigley. She is beating something up. She is unsure about and incapable of substantiating anything she has said. All the member does is carp, and she is wrong again.
Mr PRINCE replied: With pleasure. Yesterday the member for Midland asked me a question and subsequently issued a press release, a copy of which I have in my hand. In it, among other things, she said - The Opposition has been told the service’s six Assistant Commissioners have been advised that the Police Service’s operational budget, which covers the service’s day-to-day running costs, is to be slashed by ten per cent. I appreciate a contradiction by me of the member for Midland is not likely to go too far. However, this morning the Commissioner of Police, when interviewed on radio by Mr Bartlett of the ABC and asked if that was true, said - No . . . it’s interesting that I’m the one that’s supposed to have told them to cut, that’s not true at all. I’ve actually read the release by Michelle Roberts, it actually doesn’t quite indicate that there has been any direction of a 10% cut or that there has been a cut at all, so one would have to say . . . where’s the document that Michelle Roberts is, in fact, quoting from because nobody here knows what she’s talking about. Mr Bartlett then asked - So you’re questioning her facts? Mr Matthews said - Well, I’m questioning the basis that she says there’s a document that I’m supposed to have put out, because I don’t have any knowledge of it. We’ve asked around here as to, has anybody talked about a 10% cut and nobody has any knowledge of that. So, yes, I firstly would say where’s this apparent direction that I or somebody else has given there because I’d like to see it because we’re a bit puzzled. Mr Bartlett then said - Commissioner, it says - Mr Bartlett then quotes the press release as follows - Superintendents have been requested to develop strategies to cope with the savage funding cuts . . . Mr Matthews said - . . . can I just put that into a little bit of what I think is a factual situation? Mr Bartlett asked - Is there any truth in that at all? The answer is - No there’s not . . . but let me just . . . explain . . . Last year our recurrent operational budget, which includes salaries, was just over 385m . . . or in fact, almost 384 million; this year we’ve got 395 million so we’ve actually had an increase of 2.5% over and above what we got last year. Mr PRINCE: We have tried to find the origin for this so-called 10 per cent, which is further referred to in the press release of the member for Midland in which she says it is understood that the southern region, which includes Kalgoorlie, Mandurah and Bunbury, will lose $70 000 out of its budget of $700 000. That was also put to the commissioner by Mr Bartlett and the commissioner said - . . . I would expect that to be the case because we are, in fact, making changes there in terms of both Kalgoorlie and Mandurah, are in fact, going to be shifting through to Perth. Mr Bartlett said - Well, that is a 10% cut, isn’t it, maybe that’s where she got her figure from? Mr Matthews said - . . . I don’t know where she’s got it from. As I said, whether there’s any basis to it is a bit doubtful, but in any event, because we are shifting these regional headquarters through to Perth there, one of the reasons for doing that, there’s greater efficiencies both in terms of how we do the job and also in terms of savings . . . He then said that money will then be distributed across the whole of the portfolio. Mr Bartlett said in summary - So all these claims are nothing? The Commissioner of Police said - . . . I would challenge Michelle Roberts to send me the . . . alleged direction that I’m or somebody else is supposed to have given . . . that talks about 10%. . . . we don’t know where it’s come from, I want to see where it is, if she’s got it and what she says is true. The member for Quigley is making it up again because her sources have more imagination than facts. The fact is that the 2000-01 recurrent budget is $395.6m. That is $124m more than the member for Midland’s last Government provided. In 2000-01, the recurrent budget is $9m greater than in 1999-2000. Mrs ROBERTS interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Midland to order for the first time. Mr PRINCE: Since coming to office, this Government has spent, as indicated in the index figures, $2.8b in recurrent funding on Police. The Government will spend $208 per head in this current financial year, which compares to an equivalent figure of $160 in Labor's last year in office. The member for Midland has got it wrong. She accepted totally incorrect information from the member for Quigley. She is beating something up. She is unsure about and incapable of substantiating anything she has said. All the member does is carp, and she is wrong again.
With pleasure. Yesterday the member for Midland asked me a question and subsequently issued a press release, a copy of which I have in my hand. In it, among other things, she said - The Opposition has been told the service’s six Assistant Commissioners have been advised that the Police Service’s operational budget, which covers the service’s day-to-day running costs, is to be slashed by ten per cent. I appreciate a contradiction by me of the member for Midland is not likely to go too far. However, this morning the Commissioner of Police, when interviewed on radio by Mr Bartlett of the ABC and asked if that was true, said - No . . . it’s interesting that I’m the one that’s supposed to have told them to cut, that’s not true at all. I’ve actually read the release by Michelle Roberts, it actually doesn’t quite indicate that there has been any direction of a 10% cut or that there has been a cut at all, so one would have to say . . . where’s the document that Michelle Roberts is, in fact, quoting from because nobody here knows what she’s talking about. Mr Bartlett then asked - So you’re questioning her facts? Mr Matthews said - Well, I’m questioning the basis that she says there’s a document that I’m supposed to have put out, because I don’t have any knowledge of it. We’ve asked around here as to, has anybody talked about a 10% cut and nobody has any knowledge of that. So, yes, I firstly would say where’s this apparent direction that I or somebody else has given there because I’d like to see it because we’re a bit puzzled. Mr Bartlett then said - Commissioner, it says - Mr Bartlett then quotes the press release as follows - Superintendents have been requested to develop strategies to cope with the savage funding cuts . . . Mr Matthews said - . . . can I just put that into a little bit of what I think is a factual situation? Mr Bartlett asked - Is there any truth in that at all? The answer is - No there’s not . . . but let me just . . . explain . . . Last year our recurrent operational budget, which includes salaries, was just over 385m . . . or in fact, almost 384 million; this year we’ve got 395 million so we’ve actually had an increase of 2.5% over and above what we got last year. Mr PRINCE: We have tried to find the origin for this so-called 10 per cent, which is further referred to in the press release of the member for Midland in which she says it is understood that the southern region, which includes Kalgoorlie, Mandurah and Bunbury, will lose $70 000 out of its budget of $700 000. That was also put to the commissioner by Mr Bartlett and the commissioner said - . . . I would expect that to be the case because we are, in fact, making changes there in terms of both Kalgoorlie and Mandurah, are in fact, going to be shifting through to Perth. Mr Bartlett said - Well, that is a 10% cut, isn’t it, maybe that’s where she got her figure from? Mr Matthews said - . . . I don’t know where she’s got it from. As I said, whether there’s any basis to it is a bit doubtful, but in any event, because we are shifting these regional headquarters through to Perth there, one of the reasons for doing that, there’s greater efficiencies both in terms of how we do the job and also in terms of savings . . . He then said that money will then be distributed across the whole of the portfolio. Mr Bartlett said in summary - So all these claims are nothing? The Commissioner of Police said - . . . I would challenge Michelle Roberts to send me the . . . alleged direction that I’m or somebody else is supposed to have given . . . that talks about 10%. . . . we don’t know where it’s come from, I want to see where it is, if she’s got it and what she says is true. The member for Quigley is making it up again because her sources have more imagination than facts. The fact is that the 2000-01 recurrent budget is $395.6m. That is $124m more than the member for Midland’s last Government provided. In 2000-01, the recurrent budget is $9m greater than in 1999-2000. Mrs ROBERTS interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Midland to order for the first time. Mr PRINCE: Since coming to office, this Government has spent, as indicated in the index figures, $2.8b in recurrent funding on Police. The Government will spend $208 per head in this current financial year, which compares to an equivalent figure of $160 in Labor's last year in office. The member for Midland has got it wrong. She accepted totally incorrect information from the member for Quigley. She is beating something up. She is unsure about and incapable of substantiating anything she has said. All the member does is carp, and she is wrong again.
Yesterday the member for Midland asked me a question and subsequently issued a press release, a copy of which I have in my hand. In it, among other things, she said - The Opposition has been told the service’s six Assistant Commissioners have been advised that the Police Service’s operational budget, which covers the service’s day-to-day running costs, is to be slashed by ten per cent. I appreciate a contradiction by me of the member for Midland is not likely to go too far. However, this morning the Commissioner of Police, when interviewed on radio by Mr Bartlett of the ABC and asked if that was true, said - No . . . it’s interesting that I’m the one that’s supposed to have told them to cut, that’s not true at all. I’ve actually read the release by Michelle Roberts, it actually doesn’t quite indicate that there has been any direction of a 10% cut or that there has been a cut at all, so one would have to say . . . where’s the document that Michelle Roberts is, in fact, quoting from because nobody here knows what she’s talking about. Mr Bartlett then asked - So you’re questioning her facts? Mr Matthews said - Well, I’m questioning the basis that she says there’s a document that I’m supposed to have put out, because I don’t have any knowledge of it. We’ve asked around here as to, has anybody talked about a 10% cut and nobody has any knowledge of that. So, yes, I firstly would say where’s this apparent direction that I or somebody else has given there because I’d like to see it because we’re a bit puzzled. Mr Bartlett then said - Commissioner, it says - Mr Bartlett then quotes the press release as follows - Superintendents have been requested to develop strategies to cope with the savage funding cuts . . . Mr Matthews said - . . . can I just put that into a little bit of what I think is a factual situation? Mr Bartlett asked - Is there any truth in that at all? The answer is - No there’s not . . . but let me just . . . explain . . . Last year our recurrent operational budget, which includes salaries, was just over 385m . . . or in fact, almost 384 million; this year we’ve got 395 million so we’ve actually had an increase of 2.5% over and above what we got last year. Mr PRINCE: We have tried to find the origin for this so-called 10 per cent, which is further referred to in the press release of the member for Midland in which she says it is understood that the southern region, which includes Kalgoorlie, Mandurah and Bunbury, will lose $70 000 out of its budget of $700 000. That was also put to the commissioner by Mr Bartlett and the commissioner said - . . . I would expect that to be the case because we are, in fact, making changes there in terms of both Kalgoorlie and Mandurah, are in fact, going to be shifting through to Perth. Mr Bartlett said - Well, that is a 10% cut, isn’t it, maybe that’s where she got her figure from? Mr Matthews said - . . . I don’t know where she’s got it from. As I said, whether there’s any basis to it is a bit doubtful, but in any event, because we are shifting these regional headquarters through to Perth there, one of the reasons for doing that, there’s greater efficiencies both in terms of how we do the job and also in terms of savings . . . He then said that money will then be distributed across the whole of the portfolio. Mr Bartlett said in summary - So all these claims are nothing? The Commissioner of Police said - . . . I would challenge Michelle Roberts to send me the . . . alleged direction that I’m or somebody else is supposed to have given . . . that talks about 10%. . . . we don’t know where it’s come from, I want to see where it is, if she’s got it and what she says is true. The member for Quigley is making it up again because her sources have more imagination than facts. The fact is that the 2000-01 recurrent budget is $395.6m. That is $124m more than the member for Midland’s last Government provided. In 2000-01, the recurrent budget is $9m greater than in 1999-2000. Mrs ROBERTS interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Midland to order for the first time. Mr PRINCE: Since coming to office, this Government has spent, as indicated in the index figures, $2.8b in recurrent funding on Police. The Government will spend $208 per head in this current financial year, which compares to an equivalent figure of $160 in Labor's last year in office. The member for Midland has got it wrong. She accepted totally incorrect information from the member for Quigley. She is beating something up. She is unsure about and incapable of substantiating anything she has said. All the member does is carp, and she is wrong again.
So, yes, I firstly would say where’s this apparent direction that I or somebody else has given there because I’d like to see it because we’re a bit puzzled.
Mr Bartlett said in summary - So all these claims are nothing? The Commissioner of Police said - . . . I would challenge Michelle Roberts to send me the . . . alleged direction that I’m or somebody else is supposed to have given . . . that talks about 10%. . . . we don’t know where it’s come from, I want to see where it is, if she’s got it and what she says is true. The member for Quigley is making it up again because her sources have more imagination than facts. The fact is that the 2000-01 recurrent budget is $395.6m. That is $124m more than the member for Midland’s last Government provided. In 2000-01, the recurrent budget is $9m greater than in 1999-2000. Mrs ROBERTS interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Midland to order for the first time. Mr PRINCE: Since coming to office, this Government has spent, as indicated in the index figures, $2.8b in recurrent funding on Police. The Government will spend $208 per head in this current financial year, which compares to an equivalent figure of $160 in Labor's last year in office. The member for Midland has got it wrong. She accepted totally incorrect information from the member for Quigley. She is beating something up. She is unsure about and incapable of substantiating anything she has said. All the member does is carp, and she is wrong again.
Mrs ROBERTS interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Midland to order for the first time. Mr PRINCE: Since coming to office, this Government has spent, as indicated in the index figures, $2.8b in recurrent funding on Police. The Government will spend $208 per head in this current financial year, which compares to an equivalent figure of $160 in Labor's last year in office. The member for Midland has got it wrong. She accepted totally incorrect information from the member for Quigley. She is beating something up. She is unsure about and incapable of substantiating anything she has said. All the member does is carp, and she is wrong again.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Midland to order for the first time. Mr PRINCE: Since coming to office, this Government has spent, as indicated in the index figures, $2.8b in recurrent funding on Police. The Government will spend $208 per head in this current financial year, which compares to an equivalent figure of $160 in Labor's last year in office. The member for Midland has got it wrong. She accepted totally incorrect information from the member for Quigley. She is beating something up. She is unsure about and incapable of substantiating anything she has said. All the member does is carp, and she is wrong again.
Mr PRINCE: Since coming to office, this Government has spent, as indicated in the index figures, $2.8b in recurrent funding on Police. The Government will spend $208 per head in this current financial year, which compares to an equivalent figure of $160 in Labor's last year in office. The member for Midland has got it wrong. She accepted totally incorrect information from the member for Quigley. She is beating something up. She is unsure about and incapable of substantiating anything she has said. All the member does is carp, and she is wrong again.
The member for Midland has got it wrong. She accepted totally incorrect information from the member for Quigley. She is beating something up. She is unsure about and incapable of substantiating anything she has said. All the member does is carp, and she is wrong again.
Mr PRINCE replied: With pleasure. Yesterday the member for Midland asked me a question and subsequently issued a press release, a copy of which I have in my hand. In it, among other things, she said - The Opposition has been told the service’s six Assistant Commissioners have been advised that the Police Service’s operational budget, which covers the service’s day-to-day running costs, is to be slashed by ten per cent. I appreciate a contradiction by me of the member for Midland is not likely to go too far. However, this morning the Commissioner of Police, when interviewed on radio by Mr Bartlett of the ABC and asked if that was true, said - No . . . it’s interesting that I’m the one that’s supposed to have told them to cut, that’s not true at all. I’ve actually read the release by Michelle Roberts, it actually doesn’t quite indicate that there has been any direction of a 10% cut or that there has been a cut at all, so one would have to say . . . where’s the document that Michelle Roberts is, in fact, quoting from because nobody here knows what she’s talking about. Mr Bartlett then asked - So you’re questioning her facts? Mr Matthews said - Well, I’m questioning the basis that she says there’s a document that I’m supposed to have put out, because I don’t have any knowledge of it. We’ve asked around here as to, has anybody talked about a 10% cut and nobody has any knowledge of that. So, yes, I firstly would say where’s this apparent direction that I or somebody else has given there because I’d like to see it because we’re a bit puzzled. Mr Bartlett then said - Commissioner, it says - Mr Bartlett then quotes the press release as follows - Superintendents have been requested to develop strategies to cope with the savage funding cuts . . . Mr Matthews said - . . . can I just put that into a little bit of what I think is a factual situation? Mr Bartlett asked - Is there any truth in that at all? The answer is - No there’s not . . . but let me just . . . explain . . . Last year our recurrent operational budget, which includes salaries, was just over 385m . . . or in fact, almost 384 million; this year we’ve got 395 million so we’ve actually had an increase of 2.5% over and above what we got last year. Mr PRINCE: We have tried to find the origin for this so-called 10 per cent, which is further referred to in the press release of the member for Midland in which she says it is understood that the southern region, which includes Kalgoorlie, Mandurah and Bunbury, will lose $70 000 out of its budget of $700 000. That was also put to the commissioner by Mr Bartlett and the commissioner said - . . . I would expect that to be the case because we are, in fact, making changes there in terms of both Kalgoorlie and Mandurah, are in fact, going to be shifting through to Perth. Mr Bartlett said - Well, that is a 10% cut, isn’t it, maybe that’s where she got her figure from? Mr Matthews said - . . . I don’t know where she’s got it from. As I said, whether there’s any basis to it is a bit doubtful, but in any event, because we are shifting these regional headquarters through to Perth there, one of the reasons for doing that, there’s greater efficiencies both in terms of how we do the job and also in terms of savings . . . He then said that money will then be distributed across the whole of the portfolio. Mr Bartlett said in summary - So all these claims are nothing? The Commissioner of Police said - . . . I would challenge Michelle Roberts to send me the . . . alleged direction that I’m or somebody else is supposed to have given . . . that talks about 10%. . . . we don’t know where it’s come from, I want to see where it is, if she’s got it and what she says is true. The member for Quigley is making it up again because her sources have more imagination than facts. The fact is that the 2000-01 recurrent budget is $395.6m. That is $124m more than the member for Midland’s last Government provided. In 2000-01, the recurrent budget is $9m greater than in 1999-2000. Mrs ROBERTS interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Midland to order for the first time. Mr PRINCE: Since coming to office, this Government has spent, as indicated in the index figures, $2.8b in recurrent funding on Police. The Government will spend $208 per head in this current financial year, which compares to an equivalent figure of $160 in Labor's last year in office. The member for Midland has got it wrong. She accepted totally incorrect information from the member for Quigley. She is beating something up. She is unsure about and incapable of substantiating anything she has said. All the member does is carp, and she is wrong again.
With pleasure. Yesterday the member for Midland asked me a question and subsequently issued a press release, a copy of which I have in my hand. In it, among other things, she said - The Opposition has been told the service’s six Assistant Commissioners have been advised that the Police Service’s operational budget, which covers the service’s day-to-day running costs, is to be slashed by ten per cent. I appreciate a contradiction by me of the member for Midland is not likely to go too far. However, this morning the Commissioner of Police, when interviewed on radio by Mr Bartlett of the ABC and asked if that was true, said - No . . . it’s interesting that I’m the one that’s supposed to have told them to cut, that’s not true at all. I’ve actually read the release by Michelle Roberts, it actually doesn’t quite indicate that there has been any direction of a 10% cut or that there has been a cut at all, so one would have to say . . . where’s the document that Michelle Roberts is, in fact, quoting from because nobody here knows what she’s talking about. Mr Bartlett then asked - So you’re questioning her facts? Mr Matthews said - Well, I’m questioning the basis that she says there’s a document that I’m supposed to have put out, because I don’t have any knowledge of it. We’ve asked around here as to, has anybody talked about a 10% cut and nobody has any knowledge of that. So, yes, I firstly would say where’s this apparent direction that I or somebody else has given there because I’d like to see it because we’re a bit puzzled. Mr Bartlett then said - Commissioner, it says - Mr Bartlett then quotes the press release as follows - Superintendents have been requested to develop strategies to cope with the savage funding cuts . . . Mr Matthews said - . . . can I just put that into a little bit of what I think is a factual situation? Mr Bartlett asked - Is there any truth in that at all? The answer is - No there’s not . . . but let me just . . . explain . . . Last year our recurrent operational budget, which includes salaries, was just over 385m . . . or in fact, almost 384 million; this year we’ve got 395 million so we’ve actually had an increase of 2.5% over and above what we got last year. Mr PRINCE: We have tried to find the origin for this so-called 10 per cent, which is further referred to in the press release of the member for Midland in which she says it is understood that the southern region, which includes Kalgoorlie, Mandurah and Bunbury, will lose $70 000 out of its budget of $700 000. That was also put to the commissioner by Mr Bartlett and the commissioner said - . . . I would expect that to be the case because we are, in fact, making changes there in terms of both Kalgoorlie and Mandurah, are in fact, going to be shifting through to Perth. Mr Bartlett said - Well, that is a 10% cut, isn’t it, maybe that’s where she got her figure from? Mr Matthews said - . . . I don’t know where she’s got it from. As I said, whether there’s any basis to it is a bit doubtful, but in any event, because we are shifting these regional headquarters through to Perth there, one of the reasons for doing that, there’s greater efficiencies both in terms of how we do the job and also in terms of savings . . . He then said that money will then be distributed across the whole of the portfolio. Mr Bartlett said in summary - So all these claims are nothing? The Commissioner of Police said - . . . I would challenge Michelle Roberts to send me the . . . alleged direction that I’m or somebody else is supposed to have given . . . that talks about 10%. . . . we don’t know where it’s come from, I want to see where it is, if she’s got it and what she says is true. The member for Quigley is making it up again because her sources have more imagination than facts. The fact is that the 2000-01 recurrent budget is $395.6m. That is $124m more than the member for Midland’s last Government provided. In 2000-01, the recurrent budget is $9m greater than in 1999-2000. Mrs ROBERTS interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Midland to order for the first time. Mr PRINCE: Since coming to office, this Government has spent, as indicated in the index figures, $2.8b in recurrent funding on Police. The Government will spend $208 per head in this current financial year, which compares to an equivalent figure of $160 in Labor's last year in office. The member for Midland has got it wrong. She accepted totally incorrect information from the member for Quigley. She is beating something up. She is unsure about and incapable of substantiating anything she has said. All the member does is carp, and she is wrong again.
Yesterday the member for Midland asked me a question and subsequently issued a press release, a copy of which I have in my hand. In it, among other things, she said - The Opposition has been told the service’s six Assistant Commissioners have been advised that the Police Service’s operational budget, which covers the service’s day-to-day running costs, is to be slashed by ten per cent. I appreciate a contradiction by me of the member for Midland is not likely to go too far. However, this morning the Commissioner of Police, when interviewed on radio by Mr Bartlett of the ABC and asked if that was true, said - No . . . it’s interesting that I’m the one that’s supposed to have told them to cut, that’s not true at all. I’ve actually read the release by Michelle Roberts, it actually doesn’t quite indicate that there has been any direction of a 10% cut or that there has been a cut at all, so one would have to say . . . where’s the document that Michelle Roberts is, in fact, quoting from because nobody here knows what she’s talking about. Mr Bartlett then asked - So you’re questioning her facts? Mr Matthews said - Well, I’m questioning the basis that she says there’s a document that I’m supposed to have put out, because I don’t have any knowledge of it. We’ve asked around here as to, has anybody talked about a 10% cut and nobody has any knowledge of that. So, yes, I firstly would say where’s this apparent direction that I or somebody else has given there because I’d like to see it because we’re a bit puzzled. Mr Bartlett then said - Commissioner, it says - Mr Bartlett then quotes the press release as follows - Superintendents have been requested to develop strategies to cope with the savage funding cuts . . . Mr Matthews said - . . . can I just put that into a little bit of what I think is a factual situation? Mr Bartlett asked - Is there any truth in that at all? The answer is - No there’s not . . . but let me just . . . explain . . . Last year our recurrent operational budget, which includes salaries, was just over 385m . . . or in fact, almost 384 million; this year we’ve got 395 million so we’ve actually had an increase of 2.5% over and above what we got last year. Mr PRINCE: We have tried to find the origin for this so-called 10 per cent, which is further referred to in the press release of the member for Midland in which she says it is understood that the southern region, which includes Kalgoorlie, Mandurah and Bunbury, will lose $70 000 out of its budget of $700 000. That was also put to the commissioner by Mr Bartlett and the commissioner said - . . . I would expect that to be the case because we are, in fact, making changes there in terms of both Kalgoorlie and Mandurah, are in fact, going to be shifting through to Perth. Mr Bartlett said - Well, that is a 10% cut, isn’t it, maybe that’s where she got her figure from? Mr Matthews said - . . . I don’t know where she’s got it from. As I said, whether there’s any basis to it is a bit doubtful, but in any event, because we are shifting these regional headquarters through to Perth there, one of the reasons for doing that, there’s greater efficiencies both in terms of how we do the job and also in terms of savings . . . He then said that money will then be distributed across the whole of the portfolio. Mr Bartlett said in summary - So all these claims are nothing? The Commissioner of Police said - . . . I would challenge Michelle Roberts to send me the . . . alleged direction that I’m or somebody else is supposed to have given . . . that talks about 10%. . . . we don’t know where it’s come from, I want to see where it is, if she’s got it and what she says is true. The member for Quigley is making it up again because her sources have more imagination than facts. The fact is that the 2000-01 recurrent budget is $395.6m. That is $124m more than the member for Midland’s last Government provided. In 2000-01, the recurrent budget is $9m greater than in 1999-2000. Mrs ROBERTS interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Midland to order for the first time. Mr PRINCE: Since coming to office, this Government has spent, as indicated in the index figures, $2.8b in recurrent funding on Police. The Government will spend $208 per head in this current financial year, which compares to an equivalent figure of $160 in Labor's last year in office. The member for Midland has got it wrong. She accepted totally incorrect information from the member for Quigley. She is beating something up. She is unsure about and incapable of substantiating anything she has said. All the member does is carp, and she is wrong again.
So, yes, I firstly would say where’s this apparent direction that I or somebody else has given there because I’d like to see it because we’re a bit puzzled.
Mr Bartlett said in summary - So all these claims are nothing? The Commissioner of Police said - . . . I would challenge Michelle Roberts to send me the . . . alleged direction that I’m or somebody else is supposed to have given . . . that talks about 10%. . . . we don’t know where it’s come from, I want to see where it is, if she’s got it and what she says is true. The member for Quigley is making it up again because her sources have more imagination than facts. The fact is that the 2000-01 recurrent budget is $395.6m. That is $124m more than the member for Midland’s last Government provided. In 2000-01, the recurrent budget is $9m greater than in 1999-2000. Mrs ROBERTS interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Midland to order for the first time. Mr PRINCE: Since coming to office, this Government has spent, as indicated in the index figures, $2.8b in recurrent funding on Police. The Government will spend $208 per head in this current financial year, which compares to an equivalent figure of $160 in Labor's last year in office. The member for Midland has got it wrong. She accepted totally incorrect information from the member for Quigley. She is beating something up. She is unsure about and incapable of substantiating anything she has said. All the member does is carp, and she is wrong again.
Mrs ROBERTS interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Midland to order for the first time. Mr PRINCE: Since coming to office, this Government has spent, as indicated in the index figures, $2.8b in recurrent funding on Police. The Government will spend $208 per head in this current financial year, which compares to an equivalent figure of $160 in Labor's last year in office. The member for Midland has got it wrong. She accepted totally incorrect information from the member for Quigley. She is beating something up. She is unsure about and incapable of substantiating anything she has said. All the member does is carp, and she is wrong again.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Midland to order for the first time. Mr PRINCE: Since coming to office, this Government has spent, as indicated in the index figures, $2.8b in recurrent funding on Police. The Government will spend $208 per head in this current financial year, which compares to an equivalent figure of $160 in Labor's last year in office. The member for Midland has got it wrong. She accepted totally incorrect information from the member for Quigley. She is beating something up. She is unsure about and incapable of substantiating anything she has said. All the member does is carp, and she is wrong again.
Mr PRINCE: Since coming to office, this Government has spent, as indicated in the index figures, $2.8b in recurrent funding on Police. The Government will spend $208 per head in this current financial year, which compares to an equivalent figure of $160 in Labor's last year in office. The member for Midland has got it wrong. She accepted totally incorrect information from the member for Quigley. She is beating something up. She is unsure about and incapable of substantiating anything she has said. All the member does is carp, and she is wrong again.
The member for Midland has got it wrong. She accepted totally incorrect information from the member for Quigley. She is beating something up. She is unsure about and incapable of substantiating anything she has said. All the member does is carp, and she is wrong again.
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.