❓ A parliamentary question regarding alleged misuse of public funds for Labor Party advertising, met with strong denial and justification of government spending on recruitment and public awareness campaigns.
AnsweredQoN 204Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
POLITICAL ADVERTISING FOR LABOR PARTY — JUSTIFICATION
Treasurer, I refer to the recent raid made by major fraud squad officers on the offices of the Sunday Times, following a story it published about the misuse of $16 million of public funds for Labor election advertising. (1) Given that the Treasurer has now been found out in his attempt to misappropriate $16 million of public money to fund political advertising for the Labor Party — Point of Order Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I think that I just heard the member say that the Treasurer had tried to misappropriate funds. That statement would have to be considered grossly unparliamentary. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, this is a direct question to the Treasurer about the use of public funds. The suggestion in the Sunday Times article was that funds collected for public purposes were to be used to assist the Labor Party in its election campaign. That clearly is a misuse or a misappropriation of public money. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe may think that but it is not my interpretation and if that is in fact the wording of his question, the member for Capel should change it. The fact that someone outside this place may say something in breach of our rules does not give permission to a member to quote or, in the case of a question, state something that does not comply with our rules. The member for Capel will alter that part of his question. Debate Resumed Dr S.C. THOMAS : Thank you, Mr Speaker. (1) Given that the Treasurer has now been found out in his attempt to shift $16 million of public money to fund political advertising for the Labor Party at the next election, will he now commit to abandon this spending and put these funds to better use? (2) Will the Treasurer explain how he justifies this flagrant waste of money at a time when teachers, police officers, health workers and others in Western Australia are being asked to tighten their belts? Mr E.S. RIPPER
Treasurer, I refer to the recent raid made by major fraud squad officers on the offices of the Sunday Times, following a story it published about the misuse of $16 million of public funds for Labor election advertising. (1) Given that the Treasurer has now been found out in his attempt to misappropriate $16 million of public money to fund political advertising for the Labor Party — Point of Order Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I think that I just heard the member say that the Treasurer had tried to misappropriate funds. That statement would have to be considered grossly unparliamentary. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, this is a direct question to the Treasurer about the use of public funds. The suggestion in the Sunday Times article was that funds collected for public purposes were to be used to assist the Labor Party in its election campaign. That clearly is a misuse or a misappropriation of public money. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe may think that but it is not my interpretation and if that is in fact the wording of his question, the member for Capel should change it. The fact that someone outside this place may say something in breach of our rules does not give permission to a member to quote or, in the case of a question, state something that does not comply with our rules. The member for Capel will alter that part of his question. Debate Resumed Dr S.C. THOMAS : Thank you, Mr Speaker. (1) Given that the Treasurer has now been found out in his attempt to shift $16 million of public money to fund political advertising for the Labor Party at the next election, will he now commit to abandon this spending and put these funds to better use? (2) Will the Treasurer explain how he justifies this flagrant waste of money at a time when teachers, police officers, health workers and others in Western Australia are being asked to tighten their belts? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) Firstly, we are not asking teachers, police officers and nurses to tighten their belts. We are spending $2.1 billion on wage offers and settlements over the forward estimates. We are offering generous wages settlements, in particular to teachers. It is a pity that the teachers do not recognise that the wages offer is a very generous offer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more teachers to serve in Western Australia? What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more nurses to serve in Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
(1) Given that the Treasurer has now been found out in his attempt to misappropriate $16 million of public money to fund political advertising for the Labor Party — Point of Order Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I think that I just heard the member say that the Treasurer had tried to misappropriate funds. That statement would have to be considered grossly unparliamentary. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, this is a direct question to the Treasurer about the use of public funds. The suggestion in the Sunday Times article was that funds collected for public purposes were to be used to assist the Labor Party in its election campaign. That clearly is a misuse or a misappropriation of public money. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe may think that but it is not my interpretation and if that is in fact the wording of his question, the member for Capel should change it. The fact that someone outside this place may say something in breach of our rules does not give permission to a member to quote or, in the case of a question, state something that does not comply with our rules. The member for Capel will alter that part of his question. Debate Resumed Dr S.C. THOMAS : Thank you, Mr Speaker. (1) Given that the Treasurer has now been found out in his attempt to shift $16 million of public money to fund political advertising for the Labor Party at the next election, will he now commit to abandon this spending and put these funds to better use? (2) Will the Treasurer explain how he justifies this flagrant waste of money at a time when teachers, police officers, health workers and others in Western Australia are being asked to tighten their belts? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Firstly, we are not asking teachers, police officers and nurses to tighten their belts. We are spending $2.1 billion on wage offers and settlements over the forward estimates. We are offering generous wages settlements, in particular to teachers. It is a pity that the teachers do not recognise that the wages offer is a very generous offer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more teachers to serve in Western Australia? What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more nurses to serve in Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, this is a direct question to the Treasurer about the use of public funds. The suggestion in the Sunday Times article was that funds collected for public purposes were to be used to assist the Labor Party in its election campaign. That clearly is a misuse or a misappropriation of public money. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe may think that but it is not my interpretation and if that is in fact the wording of his question, the member for Capel should change it. The fact that someone outside this place may say something in breach of our rules does not give permission to a member to quote or, in the case of a question, state something that does not comply with our rules. The member for Capel will alter that part of his question. Debate Resumed Dr S.C. THOMAS : Thank you, Mr Speaker. (1) Given that the Treasurer has now been found out in his attempt to shift $16 million of public money to fund political advertising for the Labor Party at the next election, will he now commit to abandon this spending and put these funds to better use? (2) Will the Treasurer explain how he justifies this flagrant waste of money at a time when teachers, police officers, health workers and others in Western Australia are being asked to tighten their belts? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Firstly, we are not asking teachers, police officers and nurses to tighten their belts. We are spending $2.1 billion on wage offers and settlements over the forward estimates. We are offering generous wages settlements, in particular to teachers. It is a pity that the teachers do not recognise that the wages offer is a very generous offer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more teachers to serve in Western Australia? What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more nurses to serve in Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe may think that but it is not my interpretation and if that is in fact the wording of his question, the member for Capel should change it. The fact that someone outside this place may say something in breach of our rules does not give permission to a member to quote or, in the case of a question, state something that does not comply with our rules. The member for Capel will alter that part of his question. Debate Resumed Dr S.C. THOMAS : Thank you, Mr Speaker. (1) Given that the Treasurer has now been found out in his attempt to shift $16 million of public money to fund political advertising for the Labor Party at the next election, will he now commit to abandon this spending and put these funds to better use? (2) Will the Treasurer explain how he justifies this flagrant waste of money at a time when teachers, police officers, health workers and others in Western Australia are being asked to tighten their belts? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Firstly, we are not asking teachers, police officers and nurses to tighten their belts. We are spending $2.1 billion on wage offers and settlements over the forward estimates. We are offering generous wages settlements, in particular to teachers. It is a pity that the teachers do not recognise that the wages offer is a very generous offer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more teachers to serve in Western Australia? What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more nurses to serve in Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
(1) Given that the Treasurer has now been found out in his attempt to shift $16 million of public money to fund political advertising for the Labor Party at the next election, will he now commit to abandon this spending and put these funds to better use? (2) Will the Treasurer explain how he justifies this flagrant waste of money at a time when teachers, police officers, health workers and others in Western Australia are being asked to tighten their belts? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Firstly, we are not asking teachers, police officers and nurses to tighten their belts. We are spending $2.1 billion on wage offers and settlements over the forward estimates. We are offering generous wages settlements, in particular to teachers. It is a pity that the teachers do not recognise that the wages offer is a very generous offer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more teachers to serve in Western Australia? What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more nurses to serve in Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
(2) Will the Treasurer explain how he justifies this flagrant waste of money at a time when teachers, police officers, health workers and others in Western Australia are being asked to tighten their belts? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Firstly, we are not asking teachers, police officers and nurses to tighten their belts. We are spending $2.1 billion on wage offers and settlements over the forward estimates. We are offering generous wages settlements, in particular to teachers. It is a pity that the teachers do not recognise that the wages offer is a very generous offer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more teachers to serve in Western Australia? What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more nurses to serve in Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Firstly, we are not asking teachers, police officers and nurses to tighten their belts. We are spending $2.1 billion on wage offers and settlements over the forward estimates. We are offering generous wages settlements, in particular to teachers. It is a pity that the teachers do not recognise that the wages offer is a very generous offer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more teachers to serve in Western Australia? What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more nurses to serve in Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
(1)-(2) Firstly, we are not asking teachers, police officers and nurses to tighten their belts. We are spending $2.1 billion on wage offers and settlements over the forward estimates. We are offering generous wages settlements, in particular to teachers. It is a pity that the teachers do not recognise that the wages offer is a very generous offer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more teachers to serve in Western Australia? What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more nurses to serve in Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
(1) Given that the Treasurer has now been found out in his attempt to misappropriate $16 million of public money to fund political advertising for the Labor Party — Point of Order Mr A.J. CARPENTER : I think that I just heard the member say that the Treasurer had tried to misappropriate funds. That statement would have to be considered grossly unparliamentary. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, this is a direct question to the Treasurer about the use of public funds. The suggestion in the Sunday Times article was that funds collected for public purposes were to be used to assist the Labor Party in its election campaign. That clearly is a misuse or a misappropriation of public money. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe may think that but it is not my interpretation and if that is in fact the wording of his question, the member for Capel should change it. The fact that someone outside this place may say something in breach of our rules does not give permission to a member to quote or, in the case of a question, state something that does not comply with our rules. The member for Capel will alter that part of his question. Debate Resumed Dr S.C. THOMAS : Thank you, Mr Speaker. (1) Given that the Treasurer has now been found out in his attempt to shift $16 million of public money to fund political advertising for the Labor Party at the next election, will he now commit to abandon this spending and put these funds to better use? (2) Will the Treasurer explain how he justifies this flagrant waste of money at a time when teachers, police officers, health workers and others in Western Australia are being asked to tighten their belts? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Firstly, we are not asking teachers, police officers and nurses to tighten their belts. We are spending $2.1 billion on wage offers and settlements over the forward estimates. We are offering generous wages settlements, in particular to teachers. It is a pity that the teachers do not recognise that the wages offer is a very generous offer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more teachers to serve in Western Australia? What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more nurses to serve in Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Further to that point of order, this is a direct question to the Treasurer about the use of public funds. The suggestion in the Sunday Times article was that funds collected for public purposes were to be used to assist the Labor Party in its election campaign. That clearly is a misuse or a misappropriation of public money. The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe may think that but it is not my interpretation and if that is in fact the wording of his question, the member for Capel should change it. The fact that someone outside this place may say something in breach of our rules does not give permission to a member to quote or, in the case of a question, state something that does not comply with our rules. The member for Capel will alter that part of his question. Debate Resumed Dr S.C. THOMAS : Thank you, Mr Speaker. (1) Given that the Treasurer has now been found out in his attempt to shift $16 million of public money to fund political advertising for the Labor Party at the next election, will he now commit to abandon this spending and put these funds to better use? (2) Will the Treasurer explain how he justifies this flagrant waste of money at a time when teachers, police officers, health workers and others in Western Australia are being asked to tighten their belts? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Firstly, we are not asking teachers, police officers and nurses to tighten their belts. We are spending $2.1 billion on wage offers and settlements over the forward estimates. We are offering generous wages settlements, in particular to teachers. It is a pity that the teachers do not recognise that the wages offer is a very generous offer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more teachers to serve in Western Australia? What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more nurses to serve in Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
The SPEAKER : The member for Cottesloe may think that but it is not my interpretation and if that is in fact the wording of his question, the member for Capel should change it. The fact that someone outside this place may say something in breach of our rules does not give permission to a member to quote or, in the case of a question, state something that does not comply with our rules. The member for Capel will alter that part of his question. Debate Resumed Dr S.C. THOMAS : Thank you, Mr Speaker. (1) Given that the Treasurer has now been found out in his attempt to shift $16 million of public money to fund political advertising for the Labor Party at the next election, will he now commit to abandon this spending and put these funds to better use? (2) Will the Treasurer explain how he justifies this flagrant waste of money at a time when teachers, police officers, health workers and others in Western Australia are being asked to tighten their belts? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Firstly, we are not asking teachers, police officers and nurses to tighten their belts. We are spending $2.1 billion on wage offers and settlements over the forward estimates. We are offering generous wages settlements, in particular to teachers. It is a pity that the teachers do not recognise that the wages offer is a very generous offer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more teachers to serve in Western Australia? What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more nurses to serve in Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
(1) Given that the Treasurer has now been found out in his attempt to shift $16 million of public money to fund political advertising for the Labor Party at the next election, will he now commit to abandon this spending and put these funds to better use? (2) Will the Treasurer explain how he justifies this flagrant waste of money at a time when teachers, police officers, health workers and others in Western Australia are being asked to tighten their belts? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Firstly, we are not asking teachers, police officers and nurses to tighten their belts. We are spending $2.1 billion on wage offers and settlements over the forward estimates. We are offering generous wages settlements, in particular to teachers. It is a pity that the teachers do not recognise that the wages offer is a very generous offer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more teachers to serve in Western Australia? What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more nurses to serve in Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
(2) Will the Treasurer explain how he justifies this flagrant waste of money at a time when teachers, police officers, health workers and others in Western Australia are being asked to tighten their belts? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Firstly, we are not asking teachers, police officers and nurses to tighten their belts. We are spending $2.1 billion on wage offers and settlements over the forward estimates. We are offering generous wages settlements, in particular to teachers. It is a pity that the teachers do not recognise that the wages offer is a very generous offer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more teachers to serve in Western Australia? What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more nurses to serve in Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Firstly, we are not asking teachers, police officers and nurses to tighten their belts. We are spending $2.1 billion on wage offers and settlements over the forward estimates. We are offering generous wages settlements, in particular to teachers. It is a pity that the teachers do not recognise that the wages offer is a very generous offer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more teachers to serve in Western Australia? What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more nurses to serve in Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
(1)-(2) Firstly, we are not asking teachers, police officers and nurses to tighten their belts. We are spending $2.1 billion on wage offers and settlements over the forward estimates. We are offering generous wages settlements, in particular to teachers. It is a pity that the teachers do not recognise that the wages offer is a very generous offer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more teachers to serve in Western Australia? What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to recruit more nurses to serve in Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : What is wrong with that? The members on the other side do not wish to answer. What is wrong with a recruitment campaign to encourage more police officers to migrate to Western Australia? Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Darling Range to order for the first time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Will the shadow Treasurer tell me what is wrong with any of that? Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Several members interjected. Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : Is it wrong to fund a recruitment campaign? The shadow Treasurer will not answer the question. Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Is it wrong to fund a campaign to let people know about how they can access concessions and rebates from the state government? This government spends $400 million or $500 million a year on concessions and rebates. How unfortunate it would be if a disadvantaged person did not know that he or she could access financial support from the state government. Is it not socially positive to advise such people about the rebates and concessions that are available to them and how they can access them? Is it wrong to advise people who are concerned about graffiti how they can contact the agencies that will clean up that graffiti in an efficient way? Is it wrong to have an advertising campaign that says, “Ring this number and you can get the graffiti you are so concerned about cleaned up”? I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
I completely reject the premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question that somehow or other this involves misuse of public funds. This advertising is in the public interest, and even the shadow Treasurer cannot deny that a police recruitment campaign, a teacher recruitment campaign and a nurses recruitment campaign might be good policy at a time when labour and skilled labour shortages across this state are impacting upon the public sector in particular. The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
The SPEAKER : Order! I call the members for Hillarys and Darling Range to order. Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : When we talk to business, we find that they want us to spend more on recruitment campaigns; they want us to do more to get people to move to this state to allow this state to realise its full magnificent potential from the economic circumstances that confront it. Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Mr R.F. Johnson : “Come here and get beaten up” is what the coppers are saying. The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
The SPEAKER : I call the member for Hillarys to order for the second time. Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
Mr E.S. RIPPER : I thought for a moment that the member’s interjection was an invitation, Mr Speaker. As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
As I have explained in earlier debate in this house, the original submission was a budget bid. There was $26 billion worth of budget bids. Obviously, a lot of budget bids were either not funded or funded in full. This particular budget bid was virtually cut in half. Eventually the expenditure review committee approved $8.3 million—not for this year, but over three years. I completely reject the stupid premise of the shadow Treasurer’s question.
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.