❓ Minister McHale reports on SAAP negotiations, highlighting federal funding cuts and their potential impact on vulnerable Western Australians. She criticizes the federal government's offer and emphasizes the state's commitment to protecting its priorities.
AnsweredQoN 38Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I understand that the Minister for Community Development met with the federal government recently to negotiate the next five-year agreement of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program. Will the minister report to the house the progress of these negotiations? Ms S.M. McHALE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I congratulate the member and welcome her into this wonderful chamber. Indeed, I congratulate all the new members in the house. However, I note that the new opposition members in the class of 2005 have come from an all-boys school. The Liberal Party is not doing terribly well in the gender stakes. Thank God for the ALP. Once again, the Labor Party is ensuring that women get fair representation. Mr M.J. Birney : I thought you believed in equal representation. Ms S.M. McHALE : I was going easy on the opposition. It cannot talk about having fair representation; it has only two women among its 18 members. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The Leader of the Opposition is not one for facts. I repeat: two out of 18. The SAAP negotiations between the states and territories and the commonwealth are very important. We are currently renegotiating the fifth commonwealth-state agreement. SAAP was reviewed in 2004, and it was shown to be very effective at providing emergency accommodation for very vulnerable people. Horrified is the only word I can use to describe the states and territories’ reaction to the federal government’s December offer. I hope it horrified some Liberal Party members also. We have been negotiating that offer since December. The federal government’s offer represents a real cut in funding to the states and territories. It reduces the amount of funding for Western Australia by $2.4 million per annum. The funding to WA has been reduced from $17.2 million to $14.5 million. We are working very hard to prevail on the federal government to recognise its responsibility in this area. If the offer is not renegotiated, it could mean that more people, particularly vulnerable women and children, will be turned away from emergency accommodation, or, even worse, services could close. I am working very hard to make sure that that does not happen. At the same time this is occurring, the federal Treasurer is also threatening Western Australia with further funding cuts if the state does not toe the federal government’s line and abolish certain taxes. The Premier has made it very clear that Western Australia has its own priorities, which are the priorities of the Western Australian people. We are not prepared to deviate from what we said we would do and from what we need to do to protect vulnerable people. For instance, we are not prepared to introduce gambling. Senator Kay Patterson suggested that because other states receive so much money from gambling, Western Australia could do the same and put the revenue into social services. That is not the way the Western Australian government will govern for its people. I tell the member for Kingsley that we have rejected the offer but we are still continuing negotiations. I am hopeful that Senator Kay Patterson will be able to persuade the federal Treasurer to accept his responsibilities to the state. It is not looking good. Above all else, we will put Western Australians first, particularly those who are vulnerable.
Ms S.M. McHALE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I congratulate the member and welcome her into this wonderful chamber. Indeed, I congratulate all the new members in the house. However, I note that the new opposition members in the class of 2005 have come from an all-boys school. The Liberal Party is not doing terribly well in the gender stakes. Thank God for the ALP. Once again, the Labor Party is ensuring that women get fair representation. Mr M.J. Birney : I thought you believed in equal representation. Ms S.M. McHALE : I was going easy on the opposition. It cannot talk about having fair representation; it has only two women among its 18 members. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The Leader of the Opposition is not one for facts. I repeat: two out of 18. The SAAP negotiations between the states and territories and the commonwealth are very important. We are currently renegotiating the fifth commonwealth-state agreement. SAAP was reviewed in 2004, and it was shown to be very effective at providing emergency accommodation for very vulnerable people. Horrified is the only word I can use to describe the states and territories’ reaction to the federal government’s December offer. I hope it horrified some Liberal Party members also. We have been negotiating that offer since December. The federal government’s offer represents a real cut in funding to the states and territories. It reduces the amount of funding for Western Australia by $2.4 million per annum. The funding to WA has been reduced from $17.2 million to $14.5 million. We are working very hard to prevail on the federal government to recognise its responsibility in this area. If the offer is not renegotiated, it could mean that more people, particularly vulnerable women and children, will be turned away from emergency accommodation, or, even worse, services could close. I am working very hard to make sure that that does not happen. At the same time this is occurring, the federal Treasurer is also threatening Western Australia with further funding cuts if the state does not toe the federal government’s line and abolish certain taxes. The Premier has made it very clear that Western Australia has its own priorities, which are the priorities of the Western Australian people. We are not prepared to deviate from what we said we would do and from what we need to do to protect vulnerable people. For instance, we are not prepared to introduce gambling. Senator Kay Patterson suggested that because other states receive so much money from gambling, Western Australia could do the same and put the revenue into social services. That is not the way the Western Australian government will govern for its people. I tell the member for Kingsley that we have rejected the offer but we are still continuing negotiations. I am hopeful that Senator Kay Patterson will be able to persuade the federal Treasurer to accept his responsibilities to the state. It is not looking good. Above all else, we will put Western Australians first, particularly those who are vulnerable.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I congratulate the member and welcome her into this wonderful chamber. Indeed, I congratulate all the new members in the house. However, I note that the new opposition members in the class of 2005 have come from an all-boys school. The Liberal Party is not doing terribly well in the gender stakes. Thank God for the ALP. Once again, the Labor Party is ensuring that women get fair representation. Mr M.J. Birney : I thought you believed in equal representation. Ms S.M. McHALE : I was going easy on the opposition. It cannot talk about having fair representation; it has only two women among its 18 members. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The Leader of the Opposition is not one for facts. I repeat: two out of 18. The SAAP negotiations between the states and territories and the commonwealth are very important. We are currently renegotiating the fifth commonwealth-state agreement. SAAP was reviewed in 2004, and it was shown to be very effective at providing emergency accommodation for very vulnerable people. Horrified is the only word I can use to describe the states and territories’ reaction to the federal government’s December offer. I hope it horrified some Liberal Party members also. We have been negotiating that offer since December. The federal government’s offer represents a real cut in funding to the states and territories. It reduces the amount of funding for Western Australia by $2.4 million per annum. The funding to WA has been reduced from $17.2 million to $14.5 million. We are working very hard to prevail on the federal government to recognise its responsibility in this area. If the offer is not renegotiated, it could mean that more people, particularly vulnerable women and children, will be turned away from emergency accommodation, or, even worse, services could close. I am working very hard to make sure that that does not happen. At the same time this is occurring, the federal Treasurer is also threatening Western Australia with further funding cuts if the state does not toe the federal government’s line and abolish certain taxes. The Premier has made it very clear that Western Australia has its own priorities, which are the priorities of the Western Australian people. We are not prepared to deviate from what we said we would do and from what we need to do to protect vulnerable people. For instance, we are not prepared to introduce gambling. Senator Kay Patterson suggested that because other states receive so much money from gambling, Western Australia could do the same and put the revenue into social services. That is not the way the Western Australian government will govern for its people. I tell the member for Kingsley that we have rejected the offer but we are still continuing negotiations. I am hopeful that Senator Kay Patterson will be able to persuade the federal Treasurer to accept his responsibilities to the state. It is not looking good. Above all else, we will put Western Australians first, particularly those who are vulnerable.
Mr M.J. Birney : I thought you believed in equal representation. Ms S.M. McHALE : I was going easy on the opposition. It cannot talk about having fair representation; it has only two women among its 18 members. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The Leader of the Opposition is not one for facts. I repeat: two out of 18. The SAAP negotiations between the states and territories and the commonwealth are very important. We are currently renegotiating the fifth commonwealth-state agreement. SAAP was reviewed in 2004, and it was shown to be very effective at providing emergency accommodation for very vulnerable people. Horrified is the only word I can use to describe the states and territories’ reaction to the federal government’s December offer. I hope it horrified some Liberal Party members also. We have been negotiating that offer since December. The federal government’s offer represents a real cut in funding to the states and territories. It reduces the amount of funding for Western Australia by $2.4 million per annum. The funding to WA has been reduced from $17.2 million to $14.5 million. We are working very hard to prevail on the federal government to recognise its responsibility in this area. If the offer is not renegotiated, it could mean that more people, particularly vulnerable women and children, will be turned away from emergency accommodation, or, even worse, services could close. I am working very hard to make sure that that does not happen. At the same time this is occurring, the federal Treasurer is also threatening Western Australia with further funding cuts if the state does not toe the federal government’s line and abolish certain taxes. The Premier has made it very clear that Western Australia has its own priorities, which are the priorities of the Western Australian people. We are not prepared to deviate from what we said we would do and from what we need to do to protect vulnerable people. For instance, we are not prepared to introduce gambling. Senator Kay Patterson suggested that because other states receive so much money from gambling, Western Australia could do the same and put the revenue into social services. That is not the way the Western Australian government will govern for its people. I tell the member for Kingsley that we have rejected the offer but we are still continuing negotiations. I am hopeful that Senator Kay Patterson will be able to persuade the federal Treasurer to accept his responsibilities to the state. It is not looking good. Above all else, we will put Western Australians first, particularly those who are vulnerable.
Ms S.M. McHALE : I was going easy on the opposition. It cannot talk about having fair representation; it has only two women among its 18 members. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The Leader of the Opposition is not one for facts. I repeat: two out of 18. The SAAP negotiations between the states and territories and the commonwealth are very important. We are currently renegotiating the fifth commonwealth-state agreement. SAAP was reviewed in 2004, and it was shown to be very effective at providing emergency accommodation for very vulnerable people. Horrified is the only word I can use to describe the states and territories’ reaction to the federal government’s December offer. I hope it horrified some Liberal Party members also. We have been negotiating that offer since December. The federal government’s offer represents a real cut in funding to the states and territories. It reduces the amount of funding for Western Australia by $2.4 million per annum. The funding to WA has been reduced from $17.2 million to $14.5 million. We are working very hard to prevail on the federal government to recognise its responsibility in this area. If the offer is not renegotiated, it could mean that more people, particularly vulnerable women and children, will be turned away from emergency accommodation, or, even worse, services could close. I am working very hard to make sure that that does not happen. At the same time this is occurring, the federal Treasurer is also threatening Western Australia with further funding cuts if the state does not toe the federal government’s line and abolish certain taxes. The Premier has made it very clear that Western Australia has its own priorities, which are the priorities of the Western Australian people. We are not prepared to deviate from what we said we would do and from what we need to do to protect vulnerable people. For instance, we are not prepared to introduce gambling. Senator Kay Patterson suggested that because other states receive so much money from gambling, Western Australia could do the same and put the revenue into social services. That is not the way the Western Australian government will govern for its people. I tell the member for Kingsley that we have rejected the offer but we are still continuing negotiations. I am hopeful that Senator Kay Patterson will be able to persuade the federal Treasurer to accept his responsibilities to the state. It is not looking good. Above all else, we will put Western Australians first, particularly those who are vulnerable.
Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The Leader of the Opposition is not one for facts. I repeat: two out of 18. The SAAP negotiations between the states and territories and the commonwealth are very important. We are currently renegotiating the fifth commonwealth-state agreement. SAAP was reviewed in 2004, and it was shown to be very effective at providing emergency accommodation for very vulnerable people. Horrified is the only word I can use to describe the states and territories’ reaction to the federal government’s December offer. I hope it horrified some Liberal Party members also. We have been negotiating that offer since December. The federal government’s offer represents a real cut in funding to the states and territories. It reduces the amount of funding for Western Australia by $2.4 million per annum. The funding to WA has been reduced from $17.2 million to $14.5 million. We are working very hard to prevail on the federal government to recognise its responsibility in this area. If the offer is not renegotiated, it could mean that more people, particularly vulnerable women and children, will be turned away from emergency accommodation, or, even worse, services could close. I am working very hard to make sure that that does not happen. At the same time this is occurring, the federal Treasurer is also threatening Western Australia with further funding cuts if the state does not toe the federal government’s line and abolish certain taxes. The Premier has made it very clear that Western Australia has its own priorities, which are the priorities of the Western Australian people. We are not prepared to deviate from what we said we would do and from what we need to do to protect vulnerable people. For instance, we are not prepared to introduce gambling. Senator Kay Patterson suggested that because other states receive so much money from gambling, Western Australia could do the same and put the revenue into social services. That is not the way the Western Australian government will govern for its people. I tell the member for Kingsley that we have rejected the offer but we are still continuing negotiations. I am hopeful that Senator Kay Patterson will be able to persuade the federal Treasurer to accept his responsibilities to the state. It is not looking good. Above all else, we will put Western Australians first, particularly those who are vulnerable.
Ms S.M. McHALE : The Leader of the Opposition is not one for facts. I repeat: two out of 18. The SAAP negotiations between the states and territories and the commonwealth are very important. We are currently renegotiating the fifth commonwealth-state agreement. SAAP was reviewed in 2004, and it was shown to be very effective at providing emergency accommodation for very vulnerable people. Horrified is the only word I can use to describe the states and territories’ reaction to the federal government’s December offer. I hope it horrified some Liberal Party members also. We have been negotiating that offer since December. The federal government’s offer represents a real cut in funding to the states and territories. It reduces the amount of funding for Western Australia by $2.4 million per annum. The funding to WA has been reduced from $17.2 million to $14.5 million. We are working very hard to prevail on the federal government to recognise its responsibility in this area. If the offer is not renegotiated, it could mean that more people, particularly vulnerable women and children, will be turned away from emergency accommodation, or, even worse, services could close. I am working very hard to make sure that that does not happen. At the same time this is occurring, the federal Treasurer is also threatening Western Australia with further funding cuts if the state does not toe the federal government’s line and abolish certain taxes. The Premier has made it very clear that Western Australia has its own priorities, which are the priorities of the Western Australian people. We are not prepared to deviate from what we said we would do and from what we need to do to protect vulnerable people. For instance, we are not prepared to introduce gambling. Senator Kay Patterson suggested that because other states receive so much money from gambling, Western Australia could do the same and put the revenue into social services. That is not the way the Western Australian government will govern for its people. I tell the member for Kingsley that we have rejected the offer but we are still continuing negotiations. I am hopeful that Senator Kay Patterson will be able to persuade the federal Treasurer to accept his responsibilities to the state. It is not looking good. Above all else, we will put Western Australians first, particularly those who are vulnerable.
We are working very hard to prevail on the federal government to recognise its responsibility in this area. If the offer is not renegotiated, it could mean that more people, particularly vulnerable women and children, will be turned away from emergency accommodation, or, even worse, services could close. I am working very hard to make sure that that does not happen. At the same time this is occurring, the federal Treasurer is also threatening Western Australia with further funding cuts if the state does not toe the federal government’s line and abolish certain taxes. The Premier has made it very clear that Western Australia has its own priorities, which are the priorities of the Western Australian people. We are not prepared to deviate from what we said we would do and from what we need to do to protect vulnerable people. For instance, we are not prepared to introduce gambling. Senator Kay Patterson suggested that because other states receive so much money from gambling, Western Australia could do the same and put the revenue into social services. That is not the way the Western Australian government will govern for its people. I tell the member for Kingsley that we have rejected the offer but we are still continuing negotiations. I am hopeful that Senator Kay Patterson will be able to persuade the federal Treasurer to accept his responsibilities to the state. It is not looking good. Above all else, we will put Western Australians first, particularly those who are vulnerable.
Ms S.M. McHALE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I congratulate the member and welcome her into this wonderful chamber. Indeed, I congratulate all the new members in the house. However, I note that the new opposition members in the class of 2005 have come from an all-boys school. The Liberal Party is not doing terribly well in the gender stakes. Thank God for the ALP. Once again, the Labor Party is ensuring that women get fair representation. Mr M.J. Birney : I thought you believed in equal representation. Ms S.M. McHALE : I was going easy on the opposition. It cannot talk about having fair representation; it has only two women among its 18 members. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The Leader of the Opposition is not one for facts. I repeat: two out of 18. The SAAP negotiations between the states and territories and the commonwealth are very important. We are currently renegotiating the fifth commonwealth-state agreement. SAAP was reviewed in 2004, and it was shown to be very effective at providing emergency accommodation for very vulnerable people. Horrified is the only word I can use to describe the states and territories’ reaction to the federal government’s December offer. I hope it horrified some Liberal Party members also. We have been negotiating that offer since December. The federal government’s offer represents a real cut in funding to the states and territories. It reduces the amount of funding for Western Australia by $2.4 million per annum. The funding to WA has been reduced from $17.2 million to $14.5 million. We are working very hard to prevail on the federal government to recognise its responsibility in this area. If the offer is not renegotiated, it could mean that more people, particularly vulnerable women and children, will be turned away from emergency accommodation, or, even worse, services could close. I am working very hard to make sure that that does not happen. At the same time this is occurring, the federal Treasurer is also threatening Western Australia with further funding cuts if the state does not toe the federal government’s line and abolish certain taxes. The Premier has made it very clear that Western Australia has its own priorities, which are the priorities of the Western Australian people. We are not prepared to deviate from what we said we would do and from what we need to do to protect vulnerable people. For instance, we are not prepared to introduce gambling. Senator Kay Patterson suggested that because other states receive so much money from gambling, Western Australia could do the same and put the revenue into social services. That is not the way the Western Australian government will govern for its people. I tell the member for Kingsley that we have rejected the offer but we are still continuing negotiations. I am hopeful that Senator Kay Patterson will be able to persuade the federal Treasurer to accept his responsibilities to the state. It is not looking good. Above all else, we will put Western Australians first, particularly those who are vulnerable.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I congratulate the member and welcome her into this wonderful chamber. Indeed, I congratulate all the new members in the house. However, I note that the new opposition members in the class of 2005 have come from an all-boys school. The Liberal Party is not doing terribly well in the gender stakes. Thank God for the ALP. Once again, the Labor Party is ensuring that women get fair representation. Mr M.J. Birney : I thought you believed in equal representation. Ms S.M. McHALE : I was going easy on the opposition. It cannot talk about having fair representation; it has only two women among its 18 members. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The Leader of the Opposition is not one for facts. I repeat: two out of 18. The SAAP negotiations between the states and territories and the commonwealth are very important. We are currently renegotiating the fifth commonwealth-state agreement. SAAP was reviewed in 2004, and it was shown to be very effective at providing emergency accommodation for very vulnerable people. Horrified is the only word I can use to describe the states and territories’ reaction to the federal government’s December offer. I hope it horrified some Liberal Party members also. We have been negotiating that offer since December. The federal government’s offer represents a real cut in funding to the states and territories. It reduces the amount of funding for Western Australia by $2.4 million per annum. The funding to WA has been reduced from $17.2 million to $14.5 million. We are working very hard to prevail on the federal government to recognise its responsibility in this area. If the offer is not renegotiated, it could mean that more people, particularly vulnerable women and children, will be turned away from emergency accommodation, or, even worse, services could close. I am working very hard to make sure that that does not happen. At the same time this is occurring, the federal Treasurer is also threatening Western Australia with further funding cuts if the state does not toe the federal government’s line and abolish certain taxes. The Premier has made it very clear that Western Australia has its own priorities, which are the priorities of the Western Australian people. We are not prepared to deviate from what we said we would do and from what we need to do to protect vulnerable people. For instance, we are not prepared to introduce gambling. Senator Kay Patterson suggested that because other states receive so much money from gambling, Western Australia could do the same and put the revenue into social services. That is not the way the Western Australian government will govern for its people. I tell the member for Kingsley that we have rejected the offer but we are still continuing negotiations. I am hopeful that Senator Kay Patterson will be able to persuade the federal Treasurer to accept his responsibilities to the state. It is not looking good. Above all else, we will put Western Australians first, particularly those who are vulnerable.
Mr M.J. Birney : I thought you believed in equal representation. Ms S.M. McHALE : I was going easy on the opposition. It cannot talk about having fair representation; it has only two women among its 18 members. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The Leader of the Opposition is not one for facts. I repeat: two out of 18. The SAAP negotiations between the states and territories and the commonwealth are very important. We are currently renegotiating the fifth commonwealth-state agreement. SAAP was reviewed in 2004, and it was shown to be very effective at providing emergency accommodation for very vulnerable people. Horrified is the only word I can use to describe the states and territories’ reaction to the federal government’s December offer. I hope it horrified some Liberal Party members also. We have been negotiating that offer since December. The federal government’s offer represents a real cut in funding to the states and territories. It reduces the amount of funding for Western Australia by $2.4 million per annum. The funding to WA has been reduced from $17.2 million to $14.5 million. We are working very hard to prevail on the federal government to recognise its responsibility in this area. If the offer is not renegotiated, it could mean that more people, particularly vulnerable women and children, will be turned away from emergency accommodation, or, even worse, services could close. I am working very hard to make sure that that does not happen. At the same time this is occurring, the federal Treasurer is also threatening Western Australia with further funding cuts if the state does not toe the federal government’s line and abolish certain taxes. The Premier has made it very clear that Western Australia has its own priorities, which are the priorities of the Western Australian people. We are not prepared to deviate from what we said we would do and from what we need to do to protect vulnerable people. For instance, we are not prepared to introduce gambling. Senator Kay Patterson suggested that because other states receive so much money from gambling, Western Australia could do the same and put the revenue into social services. That is not the way the Western Australian government will govern for its people. I tell the member for Kingsley that we have rejected the offer but we are still continuing negotiations. I am hopeful that Senator Kay Patterson will be able to persuade the federal Treasurer to accept his responsibilities to the state. It is not looking good. Above all else, we will put Western Australians first, particularly those who are vulnerable.
Ms S.M. McHALE : I was going easy on the opposition. It cannot talk about having fair representation; it has only two women among its 18 members. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The Leader of the Opposition is not one for facts. I repeat: two out of 18. The SAAP negotiations between the states and territories and the commonwealth are very important. We are currently renegotiating the fifth commonwealth-state agreement. SAAP was reviewed in 2004, and it was shown to be very effective at providing emergency accommodation for very vulnerable people. Horrified is the only word I can use to describe the states and territories’ reaction to the federal government’s December offer. I hope it horrified some Liberal Party members also. We have been negotiating that offer since December. The federal government’s offer represents a real cut in funding to the states and territories. It reduces the amount of funding for Western Australia by $2.4 million per annum. The funding to WA has been reduced from $17.2 million to $14.5 million. We are working very hard to prevail on the federal government to recognise its responsibility in this area. If the offer is not renegotiated, it could mean that more people, particularly vulnerable women and children, will be turned away from emergency accommodation, or, even worse, services could close. I am working very hard to make sure that that does not happen. At the same time this is occurring, the federal Treasurer is also threatening Western Australia with further funding cuts if the state does not toe the federal government’s line and abolish certain taxes. The Premier has made it very clear that Western Australia has its own priorities, which are the priorities of the Western Australian people. We are not prepared to deviate from what we said we would do and from what we need to do to protect vulnerable people. For instance, we are not prepared to introduce gambling. Senator Kay Patterson suggested that because other states receive so much money from gambling, Western Australia could do the same and put the revenue into social services. That is not the way the Western Australian government will govern for its people. I tell the member for Kingsley that we have rejected the offer but we are still continuing negotiations. I am hopeful that Senator Kay Patterson will be able to persuade the federal Treasurer to accept his responsibilities to the state. It is not looking good. Above all else, we will put Western Australians first, particularly those who are vulnerable.
Mr M.J. Birney interjected. Ms S.M. McHALE : The Leader of the Opposition is not one for facts. I repeat: two out of 18. The SAAP negotiations between the states and territories and the commonwealth are very important. We are currently renegotiating the fifth commonwealth-state agreement. SAAP was reviewed in 2004, and it was shown to be very effective at providing emergency accommodation for very vulnerable people. Horrified is the only word I can use to describe the states and territories’ reaction to the federal government’s December offer. I hope it horrified some Liberal Party members also. We have been negotiating that offer since December. The federal government’s offer represents a real cut in funding to the states and territories. It reduces the amount of funding for Western Australia by $2.4 million per annum. The funding to WA has been reduced from $17.2 million to $14.5 million. We are working very hard to prevail on the federal government to recognise its responsibility in this area. If the offer is not renegotiated, it could mean that more people, particularly vulnerable women and children, will be turned away from emergency accommodation, or, even worse, services could close. I am working very hard to make sure that that does not happen. At the same time this is occurring, the federal Treasurer is also threatening Western Australia with further funding cuts if the state does not toe the federal government’s line and abolish certain taxes. The Premier has made it very clear that Western Australia has its own priorities, which are the priorities of the Western Australian people. We are not prepared to deviate from what we said we would do and from what we need to do to protect vulnerable people. For instance, we are not prepared to introduce gambling. Senator Kay Patterson suggested that because other states receive so much money from gambling, Western Australia could do the same and put the revenue into social services. That is not the way the Western Australian government will govern for its people. I tell the member for Kingsley that we have rejected the offer but we are still continuing negotiations. I am hopeful that Senator Kay Patterson will be able to persuade the federal Treasurer to accept his responsibilities to the state. It is not looking good. Above all else, we will put Western Australians first, particularly those who are vulnerable.
Ms S.M. McHALE : The Leader of the Opposition is not one for facts. I repeat: two out of 18. The SAAP negotiations between the states and territories and the commonwealth are very important. We are currently renegotiating the fifth commonwealth-state agreement. SAAP was reviewed in 2004, and it was shown to be very effective at providing emergency accommodation for very vulnerable people. Horrified is the only word I can use to describe the states and territories’ reaction to the federal government’s December offer. I hope it horrified some Liberal Party members also. We have been negotiating that offer since December. The federal government’s offer represents a real cut in funding to the states and territories. It reduces the amount of funding for Western Australia by $2.4 million per annum. The funding to WA has been reduced from $17.2 million to $14.5 million. We are working very hard to prevail on the federal government to recognise its responsibility in this area. If the offer is not renegotiated, it could mean that more people, particularly vulnerable women and children, will be turned away from emergency accommodation, or, even worse, services could close. I am working very hard to make sure that that does not happen. At the same time this is occurring, the federal Treasurer is also threatening Western Australia with further funding cuts if the state does not toe the federal government’s line and abolish certain taxes. The Premier has made it very clear that Western Australia has its own priorities, which are the priorities of the Western Australian people. We are not prepared to deviate from what we said we would do and from what we need to do to protect vulnerable people. For instance, we are not prepared to introduce gambling. Senator Kay Patterson suggested that because other states receive so much money from gambling, Western Australia could do the same and put the revenue into social services. That is not the way the Western Australian government will govern for its people. I tell the member for Kingsley that we have rejected the offer but we are still continuing negotiations. I am hopeful that Senator Kay Patterson will be able to persuade the federal Treasurer to accept his responsibilities to the state. It is not looking good. Above all else, we will put Western Australians first, particularly those who are vulnerable.
We are working very hard to prevail on the federal government to recognise its responsibility in this area. If the offer is not renegotiated, it could mean that more people, particularly vulnerable women and children, will be turned away from emergency accommodation, or, even worse, services could close. I am working very hard to make sure that that does not happen. At the same time this is occurring, the federal Treasurer is also threatening Western Australia with further funding cuts if the state does not toe the federal government’s line and abolish certain taxes. The Premier has made it very clear that Western Australia has its own priorities, which are the priorities of the Western Australian people. We are not prepared to deviate from what we said we would do and from what we need to do to protect vulnerable people. For instance, we are not prepared to introduce gambling. Senator Kay Patterson suggested that because other states receive so much money from gambling, Western Australia could do the same and put the revenue into social services. That is not the way the Western Australian government will govern for its people. I tell the member for Kingsley that we have rejected the offer but we are still continuing negotiations. I am hopeful that Senator Kay Patterson will be able to persuade the federal Treasurer to accept his responsibilities to the state. It is not looking good. Above all else, we will put Western Australians first, particularly those who are vulnerable.
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.