❓ Premier Gallop addresses concerns about the imprest travel system, highlighting a review for increased accountability and transparency. He criticises the Opposition's inconsistent stance, particularly regarding Hon Peter Foss's refusal to report on taxpayer-funded trips.
AnsweredQoN 38Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
IMPREST TRAVEL SYSTEM, ACCOUNTABILITY
Has the Premier received any response from the Opposition to his calls for more accountability and transparency in the imprest travel system? Dr GALLOP
Has the Premier received any response from the Opposition to his calls for more accountability and transparency in the imprest travel system? Dr GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am sure that all members of Parliament and the public would be aware that I have directed the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet to conduct a review of the imprest system that provides travel money for members of Parliament. I want members to provide more detail about their trips before they leave and I want reporting mechanisms when they return. I have received some correspondence from the Speaker who has suggested that Parliament take over the administration of imprest accounts. I will respond to that suggestion in due course. I am confused by the attitude of the Opposition to my desire to make the imprest system more accountable. The Leader of the Opposition states that he is happy for reports to be made to the Parliament when members return from their trips. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the position of all members of the Opposition front bench. I will refer to the comments of the shadow Attorney General and shadow Minister for Forestry, Hon Peter Foss, made in The West Australian last week. Points of Order Mr BARNETT: I am happy to debate the imprest issue at any time but I caution that the Premier may be about to reflect on the proceedings of the other place. If the Premier wishes to bring on a debate about the imprest account system, I will be delighted. I suggest he does that by a substantive motion of this House so that the issues can be debated properly. Mr KOBELKE: I do not believe this is a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition's comments reflect upon his understanding of his colleague in the other place. The mention of the member’s name seems to have driven the Leader of the Opposition to suspect that it is somehow a black mark against the Opposition. That is not the Government's intention. It is not the intention of the Premier to make any adverse comment about any member of the other place. It says more about the Leader of the Opposition’s assumptions about what may be involved when Hon Peter Foss is involved. The SPEAKER: The point of order made by the Leader of the Opposition refers to members not reflecting adversely on members of the other House. I am sure that the Premier did not intend to do that. When the point of order was made he had not done so and I am sure he did not intend to do so. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr GALLOP: The shadow Attorney General put forward the view that he had no responsibility whatsoever to table a report dealing with his taxpayer-funded trip. That is in direct contradiction to the position of the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell Hon Peter Foss to get his act together on this matter? What are the Leader of the Opposition’s standards on this issue? Is it his policy that his members have to table reports on their taxpayer-funded trips? Will the Leader of the Opposition take up the issue with Hon Peter Foss? All we get from the Opposition is silence. Hon Peter Foss’s position is interesting. He justified his decision not to report to the Parliament by saying - I do not intend to alert the Government as to how I will use this information - much as I believe Dr Gallop did not disclose to our Government his discussions with his friend Tony Blair when he visited him to find how Labor could gain power. I can only assume that Hon Peter Foss was referring to my trip to England in 1997 that was partly funded by the Institute for Public Policy Research and partly funded by the imprest account. I had discussions in Britain with a range of institutions and organisations about matters relating to modern politics and what is needed to improve our society. Not only did I make a speech in Parliament on 11 March about that trip, but also, following that speech, I tabled a report outlining all aspects of the trip, including what I learnt from the Institute for Public Policy Research, Demos, the British Labour Party and others. I must confess to my colleagues on the backbench that not only did I table that report in the Parliament but I also sent a copy of the report to the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet. As a result, the former Premier and his Government had full access to all details of that trip. That is accountability. The only question unanswered is whether the Leader of the Opposition has the guts to tell Hon Peter Foss that when he spends taxpayers’ money he is accountable and that he should provide a full report to Parliament. Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
Dr GALLOP replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am sure that all members of Parliament and the public would be aware that I have directed the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet to conduct a review of the imprest system that provides travel money for members of Parliament. I want members to provide more detail about their trips before they leave and I want reporting mechanisms when they return. I have received some correspondence from the Speaker who has suggested that Parliament take over the administration of imprest accounts. I will respond to that suggestion in due course. I am confused by the attitude of the Opposition to my desire to make the imprest system more accountable. The Leader of the Opposition states that he is happy for reports to be made to the Parliament when members return from their trips. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the position of all members of the Opposition front bench. I will refer to the comments of the shadow Attorney General and shadow Minister for Forestry, Hon Peter Foss, made in The West Australian last week. Points of Order Mr BARNETT: I am happy to debate the imprest issue at any time but I caution that the Premier may be about to reflect on the proceedings of the other place. If the Premier wishes to bring on a debate about the imprest account system, I will be delighted. I suggest he does that by a substantive motion of this House so that the issues can be debated properly. Mr KOBELKE: I do not believe this is a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition's comments reflect upon his understanding of his colleague in the other place. The mention of the member’s name seems to have driven the Leader of the Opposition to suspect that it is somehow a black mark against the Opposition. That is not the Government's intention. It is not the intention of the Premier to make any adverse comment about any member of the other place. It says more about the Leader of the Opposition’s assumptions about what may be involved when Hon Peter Foss is involved. The SPEAKER: The point of order made by the Leader of the Opposition refers to members not reflecting adversely on members of the other House. I am sure that the Premier did not intend to do that. When the point of order was made he had not done so and I am sure he did not intend to do so. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr GALLOP: The shadow Attorney General put forward the view that he had no responsibility whatsoever to table a report dealing with his taxpayer-funded trip. That is in direct contradiction to the position of the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell Hon Peter Foss to get his act together on this matter? What are the Leader of the Opposition’s standards on this issue? Is it his policy that his members have to table reports on their taxpayer-funded trips? Will the Leader of the Opposition take up the issue with Hon Peter Foss? All we get from the Opposition is silence. Hon Peter Foss’s position is interesting. He justified his decision not to report to the Parliament by saying - I do not intend to alert the Government as to how I will use this information - much as I believe Dr Gallop did not disclose to our Government his discussions with his friend Tony Blair when he visited him to find how Labor could gain power. I can only assume that Hon Peter Foss was referring to my trip to England in 1997 that was partly funded by the Institute for Public Policy Research and partly funded by the imprest account. I had discussions in Britain with a range of institutions and organisations about matters relating to modern politics and what is needed to improve our society. Not only did I make a speech in Parliament on 11 March about that trip, but also, following that speech, I tabled a report outlining all aspects of the trip, including what I learnt from the Institute for Public Policy Research, Demos, the British Labour Party and others. I must confess to my colleagues on the backbench that not only did I table that report in the Parliament but I also sent a copy of the report to the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet. As a result, the former Premier and his Government had full access to all details of that trip. That is accountability. The only question unanswered is whether the Leader of the Opposition has the guts to tell Hon Peter Foss that when he spends taxpayers’ money he is accountable and that he should provide a full report to Parliament. Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am sure that all members of Parliament and the public would be aware that I have directed the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet to conduct a review of the imprest system that provides travel money for members of Parliament. I want members to provide more detail about their trips before they leave and I want reporting mechanisms when they return. I have received some correspondence from the Speaker who has suggested that Parliament take over the administration of imprest accounts. I will respond to that suggestion in due course. I am confused by the attitude of the Opposition to my desire to make the imprest system more accountable. The Leader of the Opposition states that he is happy for reports to be made to the Parliament when members return from their trips. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the position of all members of the Opposition front bench. I will refer to the comments of the shadow Attorney General and shadow Minister for Forestry, Hon Peter Foss, made in The West Australian last week. Points of Order Mr BARNETT: I am happy to debate the imprest issue at any time but I caution that the Premier may be about to reflect on the proceedings of the other place. If the Premier wishes to bring on a debate about the imprest account system, I will be delighted. I suggest he does that by a substantive motion of this House so that the issues can be debated properly. Mr KOBELKE: I do not believe this is a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition's comments reflect upon his understanding of his colleague in the other place. The mention of the member’s name seems to have driven the Leader of the Opposition to suspect that it is somehow a black mark against the Opposition. That is not the Government's intention. It is not the intention of the Premier to make any adverse comment about any member of the other place. It says more about the Leader of the Opposition’s assumptions about what may be involved when Hon Peter Foss is involved. The SPEAKER: The point of order made by the Leader of the Opposition refers to members not reflecting adversely on members of the other House. I am sure that the Premier did not intend to do that. When the point of order was made he had not done so and I am sure he did not intend to do so. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr GALLOP: The shadow Attorney General put forward the view that he had no responsibility whatsoever to table a report dealing with his taxpayer-funded trip. That is in direct contradiction to the position of the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell Hon Peter Foss to get his act together on this matter? What are the Leader of the Opposition’s standards on this issue? Is it his policy that his members have to table reports on their taxpayer-funded trips? Will the Leader of the Opposition take up the issue with Hon Peter Foss? All we get from the Opposition is silence. Hon Peter Foss’s position is interesting. He justified his decision not to report to the Parliament by saying - I do not intend to alert the Government as to how I will use this information - much as I believe Dr Gallop did not disclose to our Government his discussions with his friend Tony Blair when he visited him to find how Labor could gain power. I can only assume that Hon Peter Foss was referring to my trip to England in 1997 that was partly funded by the Institute for Public Policy Research and partly funded by the imprest account. I had discussions in Britain with a range of institutions and organisations about matters relating to modern politics and what is needed to improve our society. Not only did I make a speech in Parliament on 11 March about that trip, but also, following that speech, I tabled a report outlining all aspects of the trip, including what I learnt from the Institute for Public Policy Research, Demos, the British Labour Party and others. I must confess to my colleagues on the backbench that not only did I table that report in the Parliament but I also sent a copy of the report to the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet. As a result, the former Premier and his Government had full access to all details of that trip. That is accountability. The only question unanswered is whether the Leader of the Opposition has the guts to tell Hon Peter Foss that when he spends taxpayers’ money he is accountable and that he should provide a full report to Parliament. Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
I have received some correspondence from the Speaker who has suggested that Parliament take over the administration of imprest accounts. I will respond to that suggestion in due course. I am confused by the attitude of the Opposition to my desire to make the imprest system more accountable. The Leader of the Opposition states that he is happy for reports to be made to the Parliament when members return from their trips. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the position of all members of the Opposition front bench. I will refer to the comments of the shadow Attorney General and shadow Minister for Forestry, Hon Peter Foss, made in The West Australian last week. Points of Order Mr BARNETT: I am happy to debate the imprest issue at any time but I caution that the Premier may be about to reflect on the proceedings of the other place. If the Premier wishes to bring on a debate about the imprest account system, I will be delighted. I suggest he does that by a substantive motion of this House so that the issues can be debated properly. Mr KOBELKE: I do not believe this is a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition's comments reflect upon his understanding of his colleague in the other place. The mention of the member’s name seems to have driven the Leader of the Opposition to suspect that it is somehow a black mark against the Opposition. That is not the Government's intention. It is not the intention of the Premier to make any adverse comment about any member of the other place. It says more about the Leader of the Opposition’s assumptions about what may be involved when Hon Peter Foss is involved. The SPEAKER: The point of order made by the Leader of the Opposition refers to members not reflecting adversely on members of the other House. I am sure that the Premier did not intend to do that. When the point of order was made he had not done so and I am sure he did not intend to do so. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr GALLOP: The shadow Attorney General put forward the view that he had no responsibility whatsoever to table a report dealing with his taxpayer-funded trip. That is in direct contradiction to the position of the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell Hon Peter Foss to get his act together on this matter? What are the Leader of the Opposition’s standards on this issue? Is it his policy that his members have to table reports on their taxpayer-funded trips? Will the Leader of the Opposition take up the issue with Hon Peter Foss? All we get from the Opposition is silence. Hon Peter Foss’s position is interesting. He justified his decision not to report to the Parliament by saying - I do not intend to alert the Government as to how I will use this information - much as I believe Dr Gallop did not disclose to our Government his discussions with his friend Tony Blair when he visited him to find how Labor could gain power. I can only assume that Hon Peter Foss was referring to my trip to England in 1997 that was partly funded by the Institute for Public Policy Research and partly funded by the imprest account. I had discussions in Britain with a range of institutions and organisations about matters relating to modern politics and what is needed to improve our society. Not only did I make a speech in Parliament on 11 March about that trip, but also, following that speech, I tabled a report outlining all aspects of the trip, including what I learnt from the Institute for Public Policy Research, Demos, the British Labour Party and others. I must confess to my colleagues on the backbench that not only did I table that report in the Parliament but I also sent a copy of the report to the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet. As a result, the former Premier and his Government had full access to all details of that trip. That is accountability. The only question unanswered is whether the Leader of the Opposition has the guts to tell Hon Peter Foss that when he spends taxpayers’ money he is accountable and that he should provide a full report to Parliament. Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
I am confused by the attitude of the Opposition to my desire to make the imprest system more accountable. The Leader of the Opposition states that he is happy for reports to be made to the Parliament when members return from their trips. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the position of all members of the Opposition front bench. I will refer to the comments of the shadow Attorney General and shadow Minister for Forestry, Hon Peter Foss, made in The West Australian last week. Points of Order Mr BARNETT: I am happy to debate the imprest issue at any time but I caution that the Premier may be about to reflect on the proceedings of the other place. If the Premier wishes to bring on a debate about the imprest account system, I will be delighted. I suggest he does that by a substantive motion of this House so that the issues can be debated properly. Mr KOBELKE: I do not believe this is a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition's comments reflect upon his understanding of his colleague in the other place. The mention of the member’s name seems to have driven the Leader of the Opposition to suspect that it is somehow a black mark against the Opposition. That is not the Government's intention. It is not the intention of the Premier to make any adverse comment about any member of the other place. It says more about the Leader of the Opposition’s assumptions about what may be involved when Hon Peter Foss is involved. The SPEAKER: The point of order made by the Leader of the Opposition refers to members not reflecting adversely on members of the other House. I am sure that the Premier did not intend to do that. When the point of order was made he had not done so and I am sure he did not intend to do so. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr GALLOP: The shadow Attorney General put forward the view that he had no responsibility whatsoever to table a report dealing with his taxpayer-funded trip. That is in direct contradiction to the position of the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell Hon Peter Foss to get his act together on this matter? What are the Leader of the Opposition’s standards on this issue? Is it his policy that his members have to table reports on their taxpayer-funded trips? Will the Leader of the Opposition take up the issue with Hon Peter Foss? All we get from the Opposition is silence. Hon Peter Foss’s position is interesting. He justified his decision not to report to the Parliament by saying - I do not intend to alert the Government as to how I will use this information - much as I believe Dr Gallop did not disclose to our Government his discussions with his friend Tony Blair when he visited him to find how Labor could gain power. I can only assume that Hon Peter Foss was referring to my trip to England in 1997 that was partly funded by the Institute for Public Policy Research and partly funded by the imprest account. I had discussions in Britain with a range of institutions and organisations about matters relating to modern politics and what is needed to improve our society. Not only did I make a speech in Parliament on 11 March about that trip, but also, following that speech, I tabled a report outlining all aspects of the trip, including what I learnt from the Institute for Public Policy Research, Demos, the British Labour Party and others. I must confess to my colleagues on the backbench that not only did I table that report in the Parliament but I also sent a copy of the report to the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet. As a result, the former Premier and his Government had full access to all details of that trip. That is accountability. The only question unanswered is whether the Leader of the Opposition has the guts to tell Hon Peter Foss that when he spends taxpayers’ money he is accountable and that he should provide a full report to Parliament. Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
Mr KOBELKE: I do not believe this is a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition's comments reflect upon his understanding of his colleague in the other place. The mention of the member’s name seems to have driven the Leader of the Opposition to suspect that it is somehow a black mark against the Opposition. That is not the Government's intention. It is not the intention of the Premier to make any adverse comment about any member of the other place. It says more about the Leader of the Opposition’s assumptions about what may be involved when Hon Peter Foss is involved. The SPEAKER: The point of order made by the Leader of the Opposition refers to members not reflecting adversely on members of the other House. I am sure that the Premier did not intend to do that. When the point of order was made he had not done so and I am sure he did not intend to do so. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr GALLOP: The shadow Attorney General put forward the view that he had no responsibility whatsoever to table a report dealing with his taxpayer-funded trip. That is in direct contradiction to the position of the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell Hon Peter Foss to get his act together on this matter? What are the Leader of the Opposition’s standards on this issue? Is it his policy that his members have to table reports on their taxpayer-funded trips? Will the Leader of the Opposition take up the issue with Hon Peter Foss? All we get from the Opposition is silence. Hon Peter Foss’s position is interesting. He justified his decision not to report to the Parliament by saying - I do not intend to alert the Government as to how I will use this information - much as I believe Dr Gallop did not disclose to our Government his discussions with his friend Tony Blair when he visited him to find how Labor could gain power. I can only assume that Hon Peter Foss was referring to my trip to England in 1997 that was partly funded by the Institute for Public Policy Research and partly funded by the imprest account. I had discussions in Britain with a range of institutions and organisations about matters relating to modern politics and what is needed to improve our society. Not only did I make a speech in Parliament on 11 March about that trip, but also, following that speech, I tabled a report outlining all aspects of the trip, including what I learnt from the Institute for Public Policy Research, Demos, the British Labour Party and others. I must confess to my colleagues on the backbench that not only did I table that report in the Parliament but I also sent a copy of the report to the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet. As a result, the former Premier and his Government had full access to all details of that trip. That is accountability. The only question unanswered is whether the Leader of the Opposition has the guts to tell Hon Peter Foss that when he spends taxpayers’ money he is accountable and that he should provide a full report to Parliament. Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
The SPEAKER: The point of order made by the Leader of the Opposition refers to members not reflecting adversely on members of the other House. I am sure that the Premier did not intend to do that. When the point of order was made he had not done so and I am sure he did not intend to do so. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr GALLOP: The shadow Attorney General put forward the view that he had no responsibility whatsoever to table a report dealing with his taxpayer-funded trip. That is in direct contradiction to the position of the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell Hon Peter Foss to get his act together on this matter? What are the Leader of the Opposition’s standards on this issue? Is it his policy that his members have to table reports on their taxpayer-funded trips? Will the Leader of the Opposition take up the issue with Hon Peter Foss? All we get from the Opposition is silence. Hon Peter Foss’s position is interesting. He justified his decision not to report to the Parliament by saying - I do not intend to alert the Government as to how I will use this information - much as I believe Dr Gallop did not disclose to our Government his discussions with his friend Tony Blair when he visited him to find how Labor could gain power. I can only assume that Hon Peter Foss was referring to my trip to England in 1997 that was partly funded by the Institute for Public Policy Research and partly funded by the imprest account. I had discussions in Britain with a range of institutions and organisations about matters relating to modern politics and what is needed to improve our society. Not only did I make a speech in Parliament on 11 March about that trip, but also, following that speech, I tabled a report outlining all aspects of the trip, including what I learnt from the Institute for Public Policy Research, Demos, the British Labour Party and others. I must confess to my colleagues on the backbench that not only did I table that report in the Parliament but I also sent a copy of the report to the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet. As a result, the former Premier and his Government had full access to all details of that trip. That is accountability. The only question unanswered is whether the Leader of the Opposition has the guts to tell Hon Peter Foss that when he spends taxpayers’ money he is accountable and that he should provide a full report to Parliament. Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
Not only did I make a speech in Parliament on 11 March about that trip, but also, following that speech, I tabled a report outlining all aspects of the trip, including what I learnt from the Institute for Public Policy Research, Demos, the British Labour Party and others. I must confess to my colleagues on the backbench that not only did I table that report in the Parliament but I also sent a copy of the report to the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet. As a result, the former Premier and his Government had full access to all details of that trip. That is accountability. The only question unanswered is whether the Leader of the Opposition has the guts to tell Hon Peter Foss that when he spends taxpayers’ money he is accountable and that he should provide a full report to Parliament. Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
The only question unanswered is whether the Leader of the Opposition has the guts to tell Hon Peter Foss that when he spends taxpayers’ money he is accountable and that he should provide a full report to Parliament. Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
Dr GALLOP replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am sure that all members of Parliament and the public would be aware that I have directed the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet to conduct a review of the imprest system that provides travel money for members of Parliament. I want members to provide more detail about their trips before they leave and I want reporting mechanisms when they return. I have received some correspondence from the Speaker who has suggested that Parliament take over the administration of imprest accounts. I will respond to that suggestion in due course. I am confused by the attitude of the Opposition to my desire to make the imprest system more accountable. The Leader of the Opposition states that he is happy for reports to be made to the Parliament when members return from their trips. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the position of all members of the Opposition front bench. I will refer to the comments of the shadow Attorney General and shadow Minister for Forestry, Hon Peter Foss, made in The West Australian last week. Points of Order Mr BARNETT: I am happy to debate the imprest issue at any time but I caution that the Premier may be about to reflect on the proceedings of the other place. If the Premier wishes to bring on a debate about the imprest account system, I will be delighted. I suggest he does that by a substantive motion of this House so that the issues can be debated properly. Mr KOBELKE: I do not believe this is a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition's comments reflect upon his understanding of his colleague in the other place. The mention of the member’s name seems to have driven the Leader of the Opposition to suspect that it is somehow a black mark against the Opposition. That is not the Government's intention. It is not the intention of the Premier to make any adverse comment about any member of the other place. It says more about the Leader of the Opposition’s assumptions about what may be involved when Hon Peter Foss is involved. The SPEAKER: The point of order made by the Leader of the Opposition refers to members not reflecting adversely on members of the other House. I am sure that the Premier did not intend to do that. When the point of order was made he had not done so and I am sure he did not intend to do so. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr GALLOP: The shadow Attorney General put forward the view that he had no responsibility whatsoever to table a report dealing with his taxpayer-funded trip. That is in direct contradiction to the position of the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell Hon Peter Foss to get his act together on this matter? What are the Leader of the Opposition’s standards on this issue? Is it his policy that his members have to table reports on their taxpayer-funded trips? Will the Leader of the Opposition take up the issue with Hon Peter Foss? All we get from the Opposition is silence. Hon Peter Foss’s position is interesting. He justified his decision not to report to the Parliament by saying - I do not intend to alert the Government as to how I will use this information - much as I believe Dr Gallop did not disclose to our Government his discussions with his friend Tony Blair when he visited him to find how Labor could gain power. I can only assume that Hon Peter Foss was referring to my trip to England in 1997 that was partly funded by the Institute for Public Policy Research and partly funded by the imprest account. I had discussions in Britain with a range of institutions and organisations about matters relating to modern politics and what is needed to improve our society. Not only did I make a speech in Parliament on 11 March about that trip, but also, following that speech, I tabled a report outlining all aspects of the trip, including what I learnt from the Institute for Public Policy Research, Demos, the British Labour Party and others. I must confess to my colleagues on the backbench that not only did I table that report in the Parliament but I also sent a copy of the report to the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet. As a result, the former Premier and his Government had full access to all details of that trip. That is accountability. The only question unanswered is whether the Leader of the Opposition has the guts to tell Hon Peter Foss that when he spends taxpayers’ money he is accountable and that he should provide a full report to Parliament. Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
I thank the member for some notice of this question. I am sure that all members of Parliament and the public would be aware that I have directed the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet to conduct a review of the imprest system that provides travel money for members of Parliament. I want members to provide more detail about their trips before they leave and I want reporting mechanisms when they return. I have received some correspondence from the Speaker who has suggested that Parliament take over the administration of imprest accounts. I will respond to that suggestion in due course. I am confused by the attitude of the Opposition to my desire to make the imprest system more accountable. The Leader of the Opposition states that he is happy for reports to be made to the Parliament when members return from their trips. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the position of all members of the Opposition front bench. I will refer to the comments of the shadow Attorney General and shadow Minister for Forestry, Hon Peter Foss, made in The West Australian last week. Points of Order Mr BARNETT: I am happy to debate the imprest issue at any time but I caution that the Premier may be about to reflect on the proceedings of the other place. If the Premier wishes to bring on a debate about the imprest account system, I will be delighted. I suggest he does that by a substantive motion of this House so that the issues can be debated properly. Mr KOBELKE: I do not believe this is a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition's comments reflect upon his understanding of his colleague in the other place. The mention of the member’s name seems to have driven the Leader of the Opposition to suspect that it is somehow a black mark against the Opposition. That is not the Government's intention. It is not the intention of the Premier to make any adverse comment about any member of the other place. It says more about the Leader of the Opposition’s assumptions about what may be involved when Hon Peter Foss is involved. The SPEAKER: The point of order made by the Leader of the Opposition refers to members not reflecting adversely on members of the other House. I am sure that the Premier did not intend to do that. When the point of order was made he had not done so and I am sure he did not intend to do so. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr GALLOP: The shadow Attorney General put forward the view that he had no responsibility whatsoever to table a report dealing with his taxpayer-funded trip. That is in direct contradiction to the position of the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell Hon Peter Foss to get his act together on this matter? What are the Leader of the Opposition’s standards on this issue? Is it his policy that his members have to table reports on their taxpayer-funded trips? Will the Leader of the Opposition take up the issue with Hon Peter Foss? All we get from the Opposition is silence. Hon Peter Foss’s position is interesting. He justified his decision not to report to the Parliament by saying - I do not intend to alert the Government as to how I will use this information - much as I believe Dr Gallop did not disclose to our Government his discussions with his friend Tony Blair when he visited him to find how Labor could gain power. I can only assume that Hon Peter Foss was referring to my trip to England in 1997 that was partly funded by the Institute for Public Policy Research and partly funded by the imprest account. I had discussions in Britain with a range of institutions and organisations about matters relating to modern politics and what is needed to improve our society. Not only did I make a speech in Parliament on 11 March about that trip, but also, following that speech, I tabled a report outlining all aspects of the trip, including what I learnt from the Institute for Public Policy Research, Demos, the British Labour Party and others. I must confess to my colleagues on the backbench that not only did I table that report in the Parliament but I also sent a copy of the report to the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet. As a result, the former Premier and his Government had full access to all details of that trip. That is accountability. The only question unanswered is whether the Leader of the Opposition has the guts to tell Hon Peter Foss that when he spends taxpayers’ money he is accountable and that he should provide a full report to Parliament. Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
I have received some correspondence from the Speaker who has suggested that Parliament take over the administration of imprest accounts. I will respond to that suggestion in due course. I am confused by the attitude of the Opposition to my desire to make the imprest system more accountable. The Leader of the Opposition states that he is happy for reports to be made to the Parliament when members return from their trips. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the position of all members of the Opposition front bench. I will refer to the comments of the shadow Attorney General and shadow Minister for Forestry, Hon Peter Foss, made in The West Australian last week. Points of Order Mr BARNETT: I am happy to debate the imprest issue at any time but I caution that the Premier may be about to reflect on the proceedings of the other place. If the Premier wishes to bring on a debate about the imprest account system, I will be delighted. I suggest he does that by a substantive motion of this House so that the issues can be debated properly. Mr KOBELKE: I do not believe this is a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition's comments reflect upon his understanding of his colleague in the other place. The mention of the member’s name seems to have driven the Leader of the Opposition to suspect that it is somehow a black mark against the Opposition. That is not the Government's intention. It is not the intention of the Premier to make any adverse comment about any member of the other place. It says more about the Leader of the Opposition’s assumptions about what may be involved when Hon Peter Foss is involved. The SPEAKER: The point of order made by the Leader of the Opposition refers to members not reflecting adversely on members of the other House. I am sure that the Premier did not intend to do that. When the point of order was made he had not done so and I am sure he did not intend to do so. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr GALLOP: The shadow Attorney General put forward the view that he had no responsibility whatsoever to table a report dealing with his taxpayer-funded trip. That is in direct contradiction to the position of the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell Hon Peter Foss to get his act together on this matter? What are the Leader of the Opposition’s standards on this issue? Is it his policy that his members have to table reports on their taxpayer-funded trips? Will the Leader of the Opposition take up the issue with Hon Peter Foss? All we get from the Opposition is silence. Hon Peter Foss’s position is interesting. He justified his decision not to report to the Parliament by saying - I do not intend to alert the Government as to how I will use this information - much as I believe Dr Gallop did not disclose to our Government his discussions with his friend Tony Blair when he visited him to find how Labor could gain power. I can only assume that Hon Peter Foss was referring to my trip to England in 1997 that was partly funded by the Institute for Public Policy Research and partly funded by the imprest account. I had discussions in Britain with a range of institutions and organisations about matters relating to modern politics and what is needed to improve our society. Not only did I make a speech in Parliament on 11 March about that trip, but also, following that speech, I tabled a report outlining all aspects of the trip, including what I learnt from the Institute for Public Policy Research, Demos, the British Labour Party and others. I must confess to my colleagues on the backbench that not only did I table that report in the Parliament but I also sent a copy of the report to the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet. As a result, the former Premier and his Government had full access to all details of that trip. That is accountability. The only question unanswered is whether the Leader of the Opposition has the guts to tell Hon Peter Foss that when he spends taxpayers’ money he is accountable and that he should provide a full report to Parliament. Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
I am confused by the attitude of the Opposition to my desire to make the imprest system more accountable. The Leader of the Opposition states that he is happy for reports to be made to the Parliament when members return from their trips. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the position of all members of the Opposition front bench. I will refer to the comments of the shadow Attorney General and shadow Minister for Forestry, Hon Peter Foss, made in The West Australian last week. Points of Order Mr BARNETT: I am happy to debate the imprest issue at any time but I caution that the Premier may be about to reflect on the proceedings of the other place. If the Premier wishes to bring on a debate about the imprest account system, I will be delighted. I suggest he does that by a substantive motion of this House so that the issues can be debated properly. Mr KOBELKE: I do not believe this is a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition's comments reflect upon his understanding of his colleague in the other place. The mention of the member’s name seems to have driven the Leader of the Opposition to suspect that it is somehow a black mark against the Opposition. That is not the Government's intention. It is not the intention of the Premier to make any adverse comment about any member of the other place. It says more about the Leader of the Opposition’s assumptions about what may be involved when Hon Peter Foss is involved. The SPEAKER: The point of order made by the Leader of the Opposition refers to members not reflecting adversely on members of the other House. I am sure that the Premier did not intend to do that. When the point of order was made he had not done so and I am sure he did not intend to do so. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr GALLOP: The shadow Attorney General put forward the view that he had no responsibility whatsoever to table a report dealing with his taxpayer-funded trip. That is in direct contradiction to the position of the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell Hon Peter Foss to get his act together on this matter? What are the Leader of the Opposition’s standards on this issue? Is it his policy that his members have to table reports on their taxpayer-funded trips? Will the Leader of the Opposition take up the issue with Hon Peter Foss? All we get from the Opposition is silence. Hon Peter Foss’s position is interesting. He justified his decision not to report to the Parliament by saying - I do not intend to alert the Government as to how I will use this information - much as I believe Dr Gallop did not disclose to our Government his discussions with his friend Tony Blair when he visited him to find how Labor could gain power. I can only assume that Hon Peter Foss was referring to my trip to England in 1997 that was partly funded by the Institute for Public Policy Research and partly funded by the imprest account. I had discussions in Britain with a range of institutions and organisations about matters relating to modern politics and what is needed to improve our society. Not only did I make a speech in Parliament on 11 March about that trip, but also, following that speech, I tabled a report outlining all aspects of the trip, including what I learnt from the Institute for Public Policy Research, Demos, the British Labour Party and others. I must confess to my colleagues on the backbench that not only did I table that report in the Parliament but I also sent a copy of the report to the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet. As a result, the former Premier and his Government had full access to all details of that trip. That is accountability. The only question unanswered is whether the Leader of the Opposition has the guts to tell Hon Peter Foss that when he spends taxpayers’ money he is accountable and that he should provide a full report to Parliament. Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
Mr KOBELKE: I do not believe this is a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition's comments reflect upon his understanding of his colleague in the other place. The mention of the member’s name seems to have driven the Leader of the Opposition to suspect that it is somehow a black mark against the Opposition. That is not the Government's intention. It is not the intention of the Premier to make any adverse comment about any member of the other place. It says more about the Leader of the Opposition’s assumptions about what may be involved when Hon Peter Foss is involved. The SPEAKER: The point of order made by the Leader of the Opposition refers to members not reflecting adversely on members of the other House. I am sure that the Premier did not intend to do that. When the point of order was made he had not done so and I am sure he did not intend to do so. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr GALLOP: The shadow Attorney General put forward the view that he had no responsibility whatsoever to table a report dealing with his taxpayer-funded trip. That is in direct contradiction to the position of the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell Hon Peter Foss to get his act together on this matter? What are the Leader of the Opposition’s standards on this issue? Is it his policy that his members have to table reports on their taxpayer-funded trips? Will the Leader of the Opposition take up the issue with Hon Peter Foss? All we get from the Opposition is silence. Hon Peter Foss’s position is interesting. He justified his decision not to report to the Parliament by saying - I do not intend to alert the Government as to how I will use this information - much as I believe Dr Gallop did not disclose to our Government his discussions with his friend Tony Blair when he visited him to find how Labor could gain power. I can only assume that Hon Peter Foss was referring to my trip to England in 1997 that was partly funded by the Institute for Public Policy Research and partly funded by the imprest account. I had discussions in Britain with a range of institutions and organisations about matters relating to modern politics and what is needed to improve our society. Not only did I make a speech in Parliament on 11 March about that trip, but also, following that speech, I tabled a report outlining all aspects of the trip, including what I learnt from the Institute for Public Policy Research, Demos, the British Labour Party and others. I must confess to my colleagues on the backbench that not only did I table that report in the Parliament but I also sent a copy of the report to the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet. As a result, the former Premier and his Government had full access to all details of that trip. That is accountability. The only question unanswered is whether the Leader of the Opposition has the guts to tell Hon Peter Foss that when he spends taxpayers’ money he is accountable and that he should provide a full report to Parliament. Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
The SPEAKER: The point of order made by the Leader of the Opposition refers to members not reflecting adversely on members of the other House. I am sure that the Premier did not intend to do that. When the point of order was made he had not done so and I am sure he did not intend to do so. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr GALLOP: The shadow Attorney General put forward the view that he had no responsibility whatsoever to table a report dealing with his taxpayer-funded trip. That is in direct contradiction to the position of the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Leader of the Opposition tell Hon Peter Foss to get his act together on this matter? What are the Leader of the Opposition’s standards on this issue? Is it his policy that his members have to table reports on their taxpayer-funded trips? Will the Leader of the Opposition take up the issue with Hon Peter Foss? All we get from the Opposition is silence. Hon Peter Foss’s position is interesting. He justified his decision not to report to the Parliament by saying - I do not intend to alert the Government as to how I will use this information - much as I believe Dr Gallop did not disclose to our Government his discussions with his friend Tony Blair when he visited him to find how Labor could gain power. I can only assume that Hon Peter Foss was referring to my trip to England in 1997 that was partly funded by the Institute for Public Policy Research and partly funded by the imprest account. I had discussions in Britain with a range of institutions and organisations about matters relating to modern politics and what is needed to improve our society. Not only did I make a speech in Parliament on 11 March about that trip, but also, following that speech, I tabled a report outlining all aspects of the trip, including what I learnt from the Institute for Public Policy Research, Demos, the British Labour Party and others. I must confess to my colleagues on the backbench that not only did I table that report in the Parliament but I also sent a copy of the report to the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet. As a result, the former Premier and his Government had full access to all details of that trip. That is accountability. The only question unanswered is whether the Leader of the Opposition has the guts to tell Hon Peter Foss that when he spends taxpayers’ money he is accountable and that he should provide a full report to Parliament. Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
Not only did I make a speech in Parliament on 11 March about that trip, but also, following that speech, I tabled a report outlining all aspects of the trip, including what I learnt from the Institute for Public Policy Research, Demos, the British Labour Party and others. I must confess to my colleagues on the backbench that not only did I table that report in the Parliament but I also sent a copy of the report to the Ministry of the Premier and Cabinet. As a result, the former Premier and his Government had full access to all details of that trip. That is accountability. The only question unanswered is whether the Leader of the Opposition has the guts to tell Hon Peter Foss that when he spends taxpayers’ money he is accountable and that he should provide a full report to Parliament. Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
The only question unanswered is whether the Leader of the Opposition has the guts to tell Hon Peter Foss that when he spends taxpayers’ money he is accountable and that he should provide a full report to Parliament. Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
Mr Barnett: If you were to investigate the issue, you would find that he did not want to report to you but to the Parliament. Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
Dr Gallop: Rubbish!
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.