❓ Question regarding revenue loss due to an agreement between the Attorney General and the Greens (WA) concerning Supreme Court fee increases, and whether Cabinet endorsed the decision. The Attorney General defends the agreement as necessary to protect revenue.
AnsweredQoN 1048Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a document tabled in the other place last night evidencing an agreement between the Attorney General and Hon Giz Watson MLC, on behalf of the Greens (WA), setting out that the agreed basis on which the disallowance motion in relation to Supreme Court fee increases will not be supported by the Greens (WA). (1) Given that the agreement allows for only a 50 per cent initial increase in the level of Supreme Court fees proposed by his Government, can the Attorney General confirm that more than $500 000 in revenue will be wiped away as a result of this arbitrary last-minute deal between Labor and the Greens? (2) Was this decision endorsed by Cabinet or is the Attorney General empowered to conduct such special deals with the Greens to secure the passage of Labor’s legislation at any cost? Mr McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) The Greens threatened to support a motion moved by a Liberal member of the Legislative Council to disallow the implementation of a number of recommendations from the Law Reform Commission relating to court fees in the District Court. It is interesting to observe that one of the immediate effects of the disallowance motion, had it been carried, would have been to make access to the District Court, where a lot of “people law” is transacted, more expensive than access to the Supreme Court, because the Liberal Party in the other place decided to disallow increases in Supreme Court fees only. The Government was caught somewhat by surprise when the Greens indicated that they would support the disallowance motion. That was relayed to me at about lunchtime yesterday by Hon Giz Watson. The estimate of the revenue from the Supreme Court fee increase is several million dollars - I cannot give the precise figure. From memory, the total revenue from the fee increase in a full year is in the vicinity of $2.5 million to $2.8 million. We are not sure yet of the precise impact of the basis of the disallowance that was negotiated between Hon Giz Watson and me during the dinner suspension last night. Mr Graham: Give them another seat in the upper House and they will change their mind. Mr McGINTY: My good friends the Greens (WA) were happy to enter into negotiations in good faith because a measure of trust exists. Hon Giz Watson and I discussed a number of issues, both before and after that matter, that will influence the total effect of loss of revenue. My view was simply that, to protect the revenue stream, it was important that we minimise the impact of the Liberal Party motion to disallow the Supreme Court fee increase. Accordingly, we negotiated it with Hon Giz Watson. I cannot give a figure for the impact until such time as we sort out the way in which that agreement will be applied. Whether it will apply to all Supreme Court fees or only to those about which the Greens were particularly concerned - that is, the non-corporate sector - will be an important issue, the detail of which we must still resolve. Ms Sue Walker: Are you entitled to enter into agreements on your own? Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the second part of the member’s question. It was my duty to take action in the circumstances to minimise the effect on the revenue and to achieve the most equitable outcome possible. In the time frame available to us, obviously it was not possible to refer the matter to Cabinet. Cabinet did not meet yesterday. Therefore, I made the decision that was then reflected in what Hon Giz Watson tabled in the upper House.
(1) Given that the agreement allows for only a 50 per cent initial increase in the level of Supreme Court fees proposed by his Government, can the Attorney General confirm that more than $500 000 in revenue will be wiped away as a result of this arbitrary last-minute deal between Labor and the Greens? (2) Was this decision endorsed by Cabinet or is the Attorney General empowered to conduct such special deals with the Greens to secure the passage of Labor’s legislation at any cost? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Greens threatened to support a motion moved by a Liberal member of the Legislative Council to disallow the implementation of a number of recommendations from the Law Reform Commission relating to court fees in the District Court. It is interesting to observe that one of the immediate effects of the disallowance motion, had it been carried, would have been to make access to the District Court, where a lot of “people law” is transacted, more expensive than access to the Supreme Court, because the Liberal Party in the other place decided to disallow increases in Supreme Court fees only. The Government was caught somewhat by surprise when the Greens indicated that they would support the disallowance motion. That was relayed to me at about lunchtime yesterday by Hon Giz Watson. The estimate of the revenue from the Supreme Court fee increase is several million dollars - I cannot give the precise figure. From memory, the total revenue from the fee increase in a full year is in the vicinity of $2.5 million to $2.8 million. We are not sure yet of the precise impact of the basis of the disallowance that was negotiated between Hon Giz Watson and me during the dinner suspension last night. Mr Graham: Give them another seat in the upper House and they will change their mind. Mr McGINTY: My good friends the Greens (WA) were happy to enter into negotiations in good faith because a measure of trust exists. Hon Giz Watson and I discussed a number of issues, both before and after that matter, that will influence the total effect of loss of revenue. My view was simply that, to protect the revenue stream, it was important that we minimise the impact of the Liberal Party motion to disallow the Supreme Court fee increase. Accordingly, we negotiated it with Hon Giz Watson. I cannot give a figure for the impact until such time as we sort out the way in which that agreement will be applied. Whether it will apply to all Supreme Court fees or only to those about which the Greens were particularly concerned - that is, the non-corporate sector - will be an important issue, the detail of which we must still resolve. Ms Sue Walker: Are you entitled to enter into agreements on your own? Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the second part of the member’s question. It was my duty to take action in the circumstances to minimise the effect on the revenue and to achieve the most equitable outcome possible. In the time frame available to us, obviously it was not possible to refer the matter to Cabinet. Cabinet did not meet yesterday. Therefore, I made the decision that was then reflected in what Hon Giz Watson tabled in the upper House.
(2) Was this decision endorsed by Cabinet or is the Attorney General empowered to conduct such special deals with the Greens to secure the passage of Labor’s legislation at any cost? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Greens threatened to support a motion moved by a Liberal member of the Legislative Council to disallow the implementation of a number of recommendations from the Law Reform Commission relating to court fees in the District Court. It is interesting to observe that one of the immediate effects of the disallowance motion, had it been carried, would have been to make access to the District Court, where a lot of “people law” is transacted, more expensive than access to the Supreme Court, because the Liberal Party in the other place decided to disallow increases in Supreme Court fees only. The Government was caught somewhat by surprise when the Greens indicated that they would support the disallowance motion. That was relayed to me at about lunchtime yesterday by Hon Giz Watson. The estimate of the revenue from the Supreme Court fee increase is several million dollars - I cannot give the precise figure. From memory, the total revenue from the fee increase in a full year is in the vicinity of $2.5 million to $2.8 million. We are not sure yet of the precise impact of the basis of the disallowance that was negotiated between Hon Giz Watson and me during the dinner suspension last night. Mr Graham: Give them another seat in the upper House and they will change their mind. Mr McGINTY: My good friends the Greens (WA) were happy to enter into negotiations in good faith because a measure of trust exists. Hon Giz Watson and I discussed a number of issues, both before and after that matter, that will influence the total effect of loss of revenue. My view was simply that, to protect the revenue stream, it was important that we minimise the impact of the Liberal Party motion to disallow the Supreme Court fee increase. Accordingly, we negotiated it with Hon Giz Watson. I cannot give a figure for the impact until such time as we sort out the way in which that agreement will be applied. Whether it will apply to all Supreme Court fees or only to those about which the Greens were particularly concerned - that is, the non-corporate sector - will be an important issue, the detail of which we must still resolve. Ms Sue Walker: Are you entitled to enter into agreements on your own? Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the second part of the member’s question. It was my duty to take action in the circumstances to minimise the effect on the revenue and to achieve the most equitable outcome possible. In the time frame available to us, obviously it was not possible to refer the matter to Cabinet. Cabinet did not meet yesterday. Therefore, I made the decision that was then reflected in what Hon Giz Watson tabled in the upper House.
Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Greens threatened to support a motion moved by a Liberal member of the Legislative Council to disallow the implementation of a number of recommendations from the Law Reform Commission relating to court fees in the District Court. It is interesting to observe that one of the immediate effects of the disallowance motion, had it been carried, would have been to make access to the District Court, where a lot of “people law” is transacted, more expensive than access to the Supreme Court, because the Liberal Party in the other place decided to disallow increases in Supreme Court fees only. The Government was caught somewhat by surprise when the Greens indicated that they would support the disallowance motion. That was relayed to me at about lunchtime yesterday by Hon Giz Watson. The estimate of the revenue from the Supreme Court fee increase is several million dollars - I cannot give the precise figure. From memory, the total revenue from the fee increase in a full year is in the vicinity of $2.5 million to $2.8 million. We are not sure yet of the precise impact of the basis of the disallowance that was negotiated between Hon Giz Watson and me during the dinner suspension last night. Mr Graham: Give them another seat in the upper House and they will change their mind. Mr McGINTY: My good friends the Greens (WA) were happy to enter into negotiations in good faith because a measure of trust exists. Hon Giz Watson and I discussed a number of issues, both before and after that matter, that will influence the total effect of loss of revenue. My view was simply that, to protect the revenue stream, it was important that we minimise the impact of the Liberal Party motion to disallow the Supreme Court fee increase. Accordingly, we negotiated it with Hon Giz Watson. I cannot give a figure for the impact until such time as we sort out the way in which that agreement will be applied. Whether it will apply to all Supreme Court fees or only to those about which the Greens were particularly concerned - that is, the non-corporate sector - will be an important issue, the detail of which we must still resolve. Ms Sue Walker: Are you entitled to enter into agreements on your own? Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the second part of the member’s question. It was my duty to take action in the circumstances to minimise the effect on the revenue and to achieve the most equitable outcome possible. In the time frame available to us, obviously it was not possible to refer the matter to Cabinet. Cabinet did not meet yesterday. Therefore, I made the decision that was then reflected in what Hon Giz Watson tabled in the upper House.
(1)-(2) The Greens threatened to support a motion moved by a Liberal member of the Legislative Council to disallow the implementation of a number of recommendations from the Law Reform Commission relating to court fees in the District Court. It is interesting to observe that one of the immediate effects of the disallowance motion, had it been carried, would have been to make access to the District Court, where a lot of “people law” is transacted, more expensive than access to the Supreme Court, because the Liberal Party in the other place decided to disallow increases in Supreme Court fees only. The Government was caught somewhat by surprise when the Greens indicated that they would support the disallowance motion. That was relayed to me at about lunchtime yesterday by Hon Giz Watson. The estimate of the revenue from the Supreme Court fee increase is several million dollars - I cannot give the precise figure. From memory, the total revenue from the fee increase in a full year is in the vicinity of $2.5 million to $2.8 million. We are not sure yet of the precise impact of the basis of the disallowance that was negotiated between Hon Giz Watson and me during the dinner suspension last night. Mr Graham: Give them another seat in the upper House and they will change their mind. Mr McGINTY: My good friends the Greens (WA) were happy to enter into negotiations in good faith because a measure of trust exists. Hon Giz Watson and I discussed a number of issues, both before and after that matter, that will influence the total effect of loss of revenue. My view was simply that, to protect the revenue stream, it was important that we minimise the impact of the Liberal Party motion to disallow the Supreme Court fee increase. Accordingly, we negotiated it with Hon Giz Watson. I cannot give a figure for the impact until such time as we sort out the way in which that agreement will be applied. Whether it will apply to all Supreme Court fees or only to those about which the Greens were particularly concerned - that is, the non-corporate sector - will be an important issue, the detail of which we must still resolve. Ms Sue Walker: Are you entitled to enter into agreements on your own? Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the second part of the member’s question. It was my duty to take action in the circumstances to minimise the effect on the revenue and to achieve the most equitable outcome possible. In the time frame available to us, obviously it was not possible to refer the matter to Cabinet. Cabinet did not meet yesterday. Therefore, I made the decision that was then reflected in what Hon Giz Watson tabled in the upper House.
Mr Graham: Give them another seat in the upper House and they will change their mind. Mr McGINTY: My good friends the Greens (WA) were happy to enter into negotiations in good faith because a measure of trust exists. Hon Giz Watson and I discussed a number of issues, both before and after that matter, that will influence the total effect of loss of revenue. My view was simply that, to protect the revenue stream, it was important that we minimise the impact of the Liberal Party motion to disallow the Supreme Court fee increase. Accordingly, we negotiated it with Hon Giz Watson. I cannot give a figure for the impact until such time as we sort out the way in which that agreement will be applied. Whether it will apply to all Supreme Court fees or only to those about which the Greens were particularly concerned - that is, the non-corporate sector - will be an important issue, the detail of which we must still resolve. Ms Sue Walker: Are you entitled to enter into agreements on your own? Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the second part of the member’s question. It was my duty to take action in the circumstances to minimise the effect on the revenue and to achieve the most equitable outcome possible. In the time frame available to us, obviously it was not possible to refer the matter to Cabinet. Cabinet did not meet yesterday. Therefore, I made the decision that was then reflected in what Hon Giz Watson tabled in the upper House.
Mr McGINTY: My good friends the Greens (WA) were happy to enter into negotiations in good faith because a measure of trust exists. Hon Giz Watson and I discussed a number of issues, both before and after that matter, that will influence the total effect of loss of revenue. My view was simply that, to protect the revenue stream, it was important that we minimise the impact of the Liberal Party motion to disallow the Supreme Court fee increase. Accordingly, we negotiated it with Hon Giz Watson. I cannot give a figure for the impact until such time as we sort out the way in which that agreement will be applied. Whether it will apply to all Supreme Court fees or only to those about which the Greens were particularly concerned - that is, the non-corporate sector - will be an important issue, the detail of which we must still resolve. Ms Sue Walker: Are you entitled to enter into agreements on your own? Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the second part of the member’s question. It was my duty to take action in the circumstances to minimise the effect on the revenue and to achieve the most equitable outcome possible. In the time frame available to us, obviously it was not possible to refer the matter to Cabinet. Cabinet did not meet yesterday. Therefore, I made the decision that was then reflected in what Hon Giz Watson tabled in the upper House.
Ms Sue Walker: Are you entitled to enter into agreements on your own? Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the second part of the member’s question. It was my duty to take action in the circumstances to minimise the effect on the revenue and to achieve the most equitable outcome possible. In the time frame available to us, obviously it was not possible to refer the matter to Cabinet. Cabinet did not meet yesterday. Therefore, I made the decision that was then reflected in what Hon Giz Watson tabled in the upper House.
Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the second part of the member’s question. It was my duty to take action in the circumstances to minimise the effect on the revenue and to achieve the most equitable outcome possible. In the time frame available to us, obviously it was not possible to refer the matter to Cabinet. Cabinet did not meet yesterday. Therefore, I made the decision that was then reflected in what Hon Giz Watson tabled in the upper House.
(1) Given that the agreement allows for only a 50 per cent initial increase in the level of Supreme Court fees proposed by his Government, can the Attorney General confirm that more than $500 000 in revenue will be wiped away as a result of this arbitrary last-minute deal between Labor and the Greens? (2) Was this decision endorsed by Cabinet or is the Attorney General empowered to conduct such special deals with the Greens to secure the passage of Labor’s legislation at any cost? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Greens threatened to support a motion moved by a Liberal member of the Legislative Council to disallow the implementation of a number of recommendations from the Law Reform Commission relating to court fees in the District Court. It is interesting to observe that one of the immediate effects of the disallowance motion, had it been carried, would have been to make access to the District Court, where a lot of “people law” is transacted, more expensive than access to the Supreme Court, because the Liberal Party in the other place decided to disallow increases in Supreme Court fees only. The Government was caught somewhat by surprise when the Greens indicated that they would support the disallowance motion. That was relayed to me at about lunchtime yesterday by Hon Giz Watson. The estimate of the revenue from the Supreme Court fee increase is several million dollars - I cannot give the precise figure. From memory, the total revenue from the fee increase in a full year is in the vicinity of $2.5 million to $2.8 million. We are not sure yet of the precise impact of the basis of the disallowance that was negotiated between Hon Giz Watson and me during the dinner suspension last night. Mr Graham: Give them another seat in the upper House and they will change their mind. Mr McGINTY: My good friends the Greens (WA) were happy to enter into negotiations in good faith because a measure of trust exists. Hon Giz Watson and I discussed a number of issues, both before and after that matter, that will influence the total effect of loss of revenue. My view was simply that, to protect the revenue stream, it was important that we minimise the impact of the Liberal Party motion to disallow the Supreme Court fee increase. Accordingly, we negotiated it with Hon Giz Watson. I cannot give a figure for the impact until such time as we sort out the way in which that agreement will be applied. Whether it will apply to all Supreme Court fees or only to those about which the Greens were particularly concerned - that is, the non-corporate sector - will be an important issue, the detail of which we must still resolve. Ms Sue Walker: Are you entitled to enter into agreements on your own? Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the second part of the member’s question. It was my duty to take action in the circumstances to minimise the effect on the revenue and to achieve the most equitable outcome possible. In the time frame available to us, obviously it was not possible to refer the matter to Cabinet. Cabinet did not meet yesterday. Therefore, I made the decision that was then reflected in what Hon Giz Watson tabled in the upper House.
(2) Was this decision endorsed by Cabinet or is the Attorney General empowered to conduct such special deals with the Greens to secure the passage of Labor’s legislation at any cost? Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Greens threatened to support a motion moved by a Liberal member of the Legislative Council to disallow the implementation of a number of recommendations from the Law Reform Commission relating to court fees in the District Court. It is interesting to observe that one of the immediate effects of the disallowance motion, had it been carried, would have been to make access to the District Court, where a lot of “people law” is transacted, more expensive than access to the Supreme Court, because the Liberal Party in the other place decided to disallow increases in Supreme Court fees only. The Government was caught somewhat by surprise when the Greens indicated that they would support the disallowance motion. That was relayed to me at about lunchtime yesterday by Hon Giz Watson. The estimate of the revenue from the Supreme Court fee increase is several million dollars - I cannot give the precise figure. From memory, the total revenue from the fee increase in a full year is in the vicinity of $2.5 million to $2.8 million. We are not sure yet of the precise impact of the basis of the disallowance that was negotiated between Hon Giz Watson and me during the dinner suspension last night. Mr Graham: Give them another seat in the upper House and they will change their mind. Mr McGINTY: My good friends the Greens (WA) were happy to enter into negotiations in good faith because a measure of trust exists. Hon Giz Watson and I discussed a number of issues, both before and after that matter, that will influence the total effect of loss of revenue. My view was simply that, to protect the revenue stream, it was important that we minimise the impact of the Liberal Party motion to disallow the Supreme Court fee increase. Accordingly, we negotiated it with Hon Giz Watson. I cannot give a figure for the impact until such time as we sort out the way in which that agreement will be applied. Whether it will apply to all Supreme Court fees or only to those about which the Greens were particularly concerned - that is, the non-corporate sector - will be an important issue, the detail of which we must still resolve. Ms Sue Walker: Are you entitled to enter into agreements on your own? Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the second part of the member’s question. It was my duty to take action in the circumstances to minimise the effect on the revenue and to achieve the most equitable outcome possible. In the time frame available to us, obviously it was not possible to refer the matter to Cabinet. Cabinet did not meet yesterday. Therefore, I made the decision that was then reflected in what Hon Giz Watson tabled in the upper House.
Mr McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The Greens threatened to support a motion moved by a Liberal member of the Legislative Council to disallow the implementation of a number of recommendations from the Law Reform Commission relating to court fees in the District Court. It is interesting to observe that one of the immediate effects of the disallowance motion, had it been carried, would have been to make access to the District Court, where a lot of “people law” is transacted, more expensive than access to the Supreme Court, because the Liberal Party in the other place decided to disallow increases in Supreme Court fees only. The Government was caught somewhat by surprise when the Greens indicated that they would support the disallowance motion. That was relayed to me at about lunchtime yesterday by Hon Giz Watson. The estimate of the revenue from the Supreme Court fee increase is several million dollars - I cannot give the precise figure. From memory, the total revenue from the fee increase in a full year is in the vicinity of $2.5 million to $2.8 million. We are not sure yet of the precise impact of the basis of the disallowance that was negotiated between Hon Giz Watson and me during the dinner suspension last night. Mr Graham: Give them another seat in the upper House and they will change their mind. Mr McGINTY: My good friends the Greens (WA) were happy to enter into negotiations in good faith because a measure of trust exists. Hon Giz Watson and I discussed a number of issues, both before and after that matter, that will influence the total effect of loss of revenue. My view was simply that, to protect the revenue stream, it was important that we minimise the impact of the Liberal Party motion to disallow the Supreme Court fee increase. Accordingly, we negotiated it with Hon Giz Watson. I cannot give a figure for the impact until such time as we sort out the way in which that agreement will be applied. Whether it will apply to all Supreme Court fees or only to those about which the Greens were particularly concerned - that is, the non-corporate sector - will be an important issue, the detail of which we must still resolve. Ms Sue Walker: Are you entitled to enter into agreements on your own? Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the second part of the member’s question. It was my duty to take action in the circumstances to minimise the effect on the revenue and to achieve the most equitable outcome possible. In the time frame available to us, obviously it was not possible to refer the matter to Cabinet. Cabinet did not meet yesterday. Therefore, I made the decision that was then reflected in what Hon Giz Watson tabled in the upper House.
(1)-(2) The Greens threatened to support a motion moved by a Liberal member of the Legislative Council to disallow the implementation of a number of recommendations from the Law Reform Commission relating to court fees in the District Court. It is interesting to observe that one of the immediate effects of the disallowance motion, had it been carried, would have been to make access to the District Court, where a lot of “people law” is transacted, more expensive than access to the Supreme Court, because the Liberal Party in the other place decided to disallow increases in Supreme Court fees only. The Government was caught somewhat by surprise when the Greens indicated that they would support the disallowance motion. That was relayed to me at about lunchtime yesterday by Hon Giz Watson. The estimate of the revenue from the Supreme Court fee increase is several million dollars - I cannot give the precise figure. From memory, the total revenue from the fee increase in a full year is in the vicinity of $2.5 million to $2.8 million. We are not sure yet of the precise impact of the basis of the disallowance that was negotiated between Hon Giz Watson and me during the dinner suspension last night. Mr Graham: Give them another seat in the upper House and they will change their mind. Mr McGINTY: My good friends the Greens (WA) were happy to enter into negotiations in good faith because a measure of trust exists. Hon Giz Watson and I discussed a number of issues, both before and after that matter, that will influence the total effect of loss of revenue. My view was simply that, to protect the revenue stream, it was important that we minimise the impact of the Liberal Party motion to disallow the Supreme Court fee increase. Accordingly, we negotiated it with Hon Giz Watson. I cannot give a figure for the impact until such time as we sort out the way in which that agreement will be applied. Whether it will apply to all Supreme Court fees or only to those about which the Greens were particularly concerned - that is, the non-corporate sector - will be an important issue, the detail of which we must still resolve. Ms Sue Walker: Are you entitled to enter into agreements on your own? Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the second part of the member’s question. It was my duty to take action in the circumstances to minimise the effect on the revenue and to achieve the most equitable outcome possible. In the time frame available to us, obviously it was not possible to refer the matter to Cabinet. Cabinet did not meet yesterday. Therefore, I made the decision that was then reflected in what Hon Giz Watson tabled in the upper House.
Mr Graham: Give them another seat in the upper House and they will change their mind. Mr McGINTY: My good friends the Greens (WA) were happy to enter into negotiations in good faith because a measure of trust exists. Hon Giz Watson and I discussed a number of issues, both before and after that matter, that will influence the total effect of loss of revenue. My view was simply that, to protect the revenue stream, it was important that we minimise the impact of the Liberal Party motion to disallow the Supreme Court fee increase. Accordingly, we negotiated it with Hon Giz Watson. I cannot give a figure for the impact until such time as we sort out the way in which that agreement will be applied. Whether it will apply to all Supreme Court fees or only to those about which the Greens were particularly concerned - that is, the non-corporate sector - will be an important issue, the detail of which we must still resolve. Ms Sue Walker: Are you entitled to enter into agreements on your own? Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the second part of the member’s question. It was my duty to take action in the circumstances to minimise the effect on the revenue and to achieve the most equitable outcome possible. In the time frame available to us, obviously it was not possible to refer the matter to Cabinet. Cabinet did not meet yesterday. Therefore, I made the decision that was then reflected in what Hon Giz Watson tabled in the upper House.
Mr McGINTY: My good friends the Greens (WA) were happy to enter into negotiations in good faith because a measure of trust exists. Hon Giz Watson and I discussed a number of issues, both before and after that matter, that will influence the total effect of loss of revenue. My view was simply that, to protect the revenue stream, it was important that we minimise the impact of the Liberal Party motion to disallow the Supreme Court fee increase. Accordingly, we negotiated it with Hon Giz Watson. I cannot give a figure for the impact until such time as we sort out the way in which that agreement will be applied. Whether it will apply to all Supreme Court fees or only to those about which the Greens were particularly concerned - that is, the non-corporate sector - will be an important issue, the detail of which we must still resolve. Ms Sue Walker: Are you entitled to enter into agreements on your own? Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the second part of the member’s question. It was my duty to take action in the circumstances to minimise the effect on the revenue and to achieve the most equitable outcome possible. In the time frame available to us, obviously it was not possible to refer the matter to Cabinet. Cabinet did not meet yesterday. Therefore, I made the decision that was then reflected in what Hon Giz Watson tabled in the upper House.
Ms Sue Walker: Are you entitled to enter into agreements on your own? Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the second part of the member’s question. It was my duty to take action in the circumstances to minimise the effect on the revenue and to achieve the most equitable outcome possible. In the time frame available to us, obviously it was not possible to refer the matter to Cabinet. Cabinet did not meet yesterday. Therefore, I made the decision that was then reflected in what Hon Giz Watson tabled in the upper House.
Mr McGINTY: I am coming to the second part of the member’s question. It was my duty to take action in the circumstances to minimise the effect on the revenue and to achieve the most equitable outcome possible. In the time frame available to us, obviously it was not possible to refer the matter to Cabinet. Cabinet did not meet yesterday. Therefore, I made the decision that was then reflected in what Hon Giz Watson tabled in the upper House.
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.