❓ A parliamentary question regarding the Minister for Tourism's decision to end support for Rally Australia. The questions focus on the Tourism WA Board's involvement and the reasons for the Minister's actions.
AnsweredQoN 344Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Minister for Tourism to his decision to end support for Rally Australia. (1) Did the minister obtain support from the Tourism Western Australia Board before making the announcement on 21 March 2005? (2) Did the board change its position subsequent to the 4 March 2005 meeting, at which it was determined to run the event in 2005 and 2006 and to wait until December 2005 to give notification that 2006 would be the last year of the event? (3) Why did the minister announce the end of Rally Australia ahead of the planned schedule agreed to by the Tourism WA Board? (4) Why was the option of reduced government support ignored before the minister’s announcement? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Tourism Western Australia Board recommended this action to the Minister for Tourism. (2) No. (3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
(1) Did the minister obtain support from the Tourism Western Australia Board before making the announcement on 21 March 2005? (2) Did the board change its position subsequent to the 4 March 2005 meeting, at which it was determined to run the event in 2005 and 2006 and to wait until December 2005 to give notification that 2006 would be the last year of the event? (3) Why did the minister announce the end of Rally Australia ahead of the planned schedule agreed to by the Tourism WA Board? (4) Why was the option of reduced government support ignored before the minister’s announcement? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Tourism Western Australia Board recommended this action to the Minister for Tourism. (2) No. (3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
(2) Did the board change its position subsequent to the 4 March 2005 meeting, at which it was determined to run the event in 2005 and 2006 and to wait until December 2005 to give notification that 2006 would be the last year of the event? (3) Why did the minister announce the end of Rally Australia ahead of the planned schedule agreed to by the Tourism WA Board? (4) Why was the option of reduced government support ignored before the minister’s announcement? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Tourism Western Australia Board recommended this action to the Minister for Tourism. (2) No. (3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
(3) Why did the minister announce the end of Rally Australia ahead of the planned schedule agreed to by the Tourism WA Board? (4) Why was the option of reduced government support ignored before the minister’s announcement? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Tourism Western Australia Board recommended this action to the Minister for Tourism. (2) No. (3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
(4) Why was the option of reduced government support ignored before the minister’s announcement? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Tourism Western Australia Board recommended this action to the Minister for Tourism. (2) No. (3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Tourism Western Australia Board recommended this action to the Minister for Tourism. (2) No. (3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Tourism Western Australia Board recommended this action to the Minister for Tourism. (2) No. (3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
(1) The Tourism Western Australia Board recommended this action to the Minister for Tourism. (2) No. (3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
(2) No. (3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
(3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
(4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
(1) Did the minister obtain support from the Tourism Western Australia Board before making the announcement on 21 March 2005? (2) Did the board change its position subsequent to the 4 March 2005 meeting, at which it was determined to run the event in 2005 and 2006 and to wait until December 2005 to give notification that 2006 would be the last year of the event? (3) Why did the minister announce the end of Rally Australia ahead of the planned schedule agreed to by the Tourism WA Board? (4) Why was the option of reduced government support ignored before the minister’s announcement? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Tourism Western Australia Board recommended this action to the Minister for Tourism. (2) No. (3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
(2) Did the board change its position subsequent to the 4 March 2005 meeting, at which it was determined to run the event in 2005 and 2006 and to wait until December 2005 to give notification that 2006 would be the last year of the event? (3) Why did the minister announce the end of Rally Australia ahead of the planned schedule agreed to by the Tourism WA Board? (4) Why was the option of reduced government support ignored before the minister’s announcement? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Tourism Western Australia Board recommended this action to the Minister for Tourism. (2) No. (3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
(3) Why did the minister announce the end of Rally Australia ahead of the planned schedule agreed to by the Tourism WA Board? (4) Why was the option of reduced government support ignored before the minister’s announcement? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Tourism Western Australia Board recommended this action to the Minister for Tourism. (2) No. (3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
(4) Why was the option of reduced government support ignored before the minister’s announcement? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Tourism Western Australia Board recommended this action to the Minister for Tourism. (2) No. (3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Tourism Western Australia Board recommended this action to the Minister for Tourism. (2) No. (3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Tourism Western Australia Board recommended this action to the Minister for Tourism. (2) No. (3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
(1) The Tourism Western Australia Board recommended this action to the Minister for Tourism. (2) No. (3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
(2) No. (3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
(3) The government has always indicated that it would honour its legal obligations in seeking a transition of the event to another state or territory. (4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
(4) There was no viable proposal for reduced government support.
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.