❓ Hon Bruce Donaldson questions the Minister for Local Government regarding financial assistance grants for amalgamated councils, specifically if existing grants are guaranteed for five years post-amalgamation and if this affects the distribution formula and horizontal equalisation principles. The Minister denies directing the WA Local Government Grants Commission but admits to lobbying for the change.
AnsweredQoN 1408Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Will shire or town councils that want to amalgamate have their existing individual financial assistance grants guaranteed for five years after the amalgamation has occurred before any re-assessment of the new local authority is undertaken by the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission? (2) If so, does this change affect the distribution formula used by the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission, and, if so, still meet the horizontal equalisation principles set by the Commonwealth Government when the commission makes its determinations of payments to all Western Australian local authorities? (3) Did the minister direct the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission to extend the period of full entitlement to councils that amalgamate from the existing two-year moratorium principle to five years? Hon TOM STEPHENS
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Obviously the answer to the last question is no. I would not, should not and did not direct. I did lobby very hard - Hon Norman Moore: I am trying to imagine what your lobbying would be like! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I lobbied very hard. Hon Norman Moore: I know! The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to explain. Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
(2) If so, does this change affect the distribution formula used by the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission, and, if so, still meet the horizontal equalisation principles set by the Commonwealth Government when the commission makes its determinations of payments to all Western Australian local authorities? (3) Did the minister direct the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission to extend the period of full entitlement to councils that amalgamate from the existing two-year moratorium principle to five years? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Obviously the answer to the last question is no. I would not, should not and did not direct. I did lobby very hard - Hon Norman Moore: I am trying to imagine what your lobbying would be like! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I lobbied very hard. Hon Norman Moore: I know! The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to explain. Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
(3) Did the minister direct the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission to extend the period of full entitlement to councils that amalgamate from the existing two-year moratorium principle to five years? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Obviously the answer to the last question is no. I would not, should not and did not direct. I did lobby very hard - Hon Norman Moore: I am trying to imagine what your lobbying would be like! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I lobbied very hard. Hon Norman Moore: I know! The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to explain. Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Obviously the answer to the last question is no. I would not, should not and did not direct. I did lobby very hard - Hon Norman Moore: I am trying to imagine what your lobbying would be like! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I lobbied very hard. Hon Norman Moore: I know! The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to explain. Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
(1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Obviously the answer to the last question is no. I would not, should not and did not direct. I did lobby very hard - Hon Norman Moore: I am trying to imagine what your lobbying would be like! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I lobbied very hard. Hon Norman Moore: I know! The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to explain. Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon Norman Moore: I am trying to imagine what your lobbying would be like! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I lobbied very hard. Hon Norman Moore: I know! The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to explain. Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: I lobbied very hard. Hon Norman Moore: I know! The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to explain. Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon Norman Moore: I know! The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to explain. Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to explain. Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
(2) If so, does this change affect the distribution formula used by the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission, and, if so, still meet the horizontal equalisation principles set by the Commonwealth Government when the commission makes its determinations of payments to all Western Australian local authorities? (3) Did the minister direct the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission to extend the period of full entitlement to councils that amalgamate from the existing two-year moratorium principle to five years? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Obviously the answer to the last question is no. I would not, should not and did not direct. I did lobby very hard - Hon Norman Moore: I am trying to imagine what your lobbying would be like! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I lobbied very hard. Hon Norman Moore: I know! The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to explain. Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
(3) Did the minister direct the Western Australian Local Government Grants Commission to extend the period of full entitlement to councils that amalgamate from the existing two-year moratorium principle to five years? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Obviously the answer to the last question is no. I would not, should not and did not direct. I did lobby very hard - Hon Norman Moore: I am trying to imagine what your lobbying would be like! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I lobbied very hard. Hon Norman Moore: I know! The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to explain. Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Obviously the answer to the last question is no. I would not, should not and did not direct. I did lobby very hard - Hon Norman Moore: I am trying to imagine what your lobbying would be like! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I lobbied very hard. Hon Norman Moore: I know! The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to explain. Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
(1)-(3) I thank the member for the question. Obviously the answer to the last question is no. I would not, should not and did not direct. I did lobby very hard - Hon Norman Moore: I am trying to imagine what your lobbying would be like! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I lobbied very hard. Hon Norman Moore: I know! The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to explain. Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon Norman Moore: I am trying to imagine what your lobbying would be like! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I lobbied very hard. Hon Norman Moore: I know! The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to explain. Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: I lobbied very hard. Hon Norman Moore: I know! The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to explain. Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon Norman Moore: I know! The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to explain. Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister is trying to explain. Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: New board members were appointed. These are important issues. From the informal discussions that I have had around the House, I think that generally there is support for the outcomes. However, the last part of the question is interesting. If a two-year moratorium existed under the pre-existing policy and that did not offend the national policies, why would a five-year moratorium offend? Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon Bruce Donaldson: I am asking the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: It is a good question. It is such a good question that I want to - Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon Norman Moore: Put it on notice! Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: I want to answer it carefully, because the member can be very tricky. It is a good, solid, hard-hitting question, and I do not want to mislead the member or the House. I want to place the question under close analysis and give the member a considered response. There are divided viewpoints on this issue. It was not a unanimous decision, as I understand it, by the commission. It was well received in some quarters. I understand that it was in the township of Narrogin that this issue was first raised with the Government. Narrogin is not an area that we are expecting to win at the next election, is it? Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon Kim Chance: I do not know! Possibly! Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: The community in Narrogin raised this issue vigorously with us. With a complete political disinterest, I was interested in the good governance of local government in that community and could see the problem with which they were faced. I had heard about the problem that Albany experienced, which was a source of consternation between that community and the previous Government, and about the allocations that were being made by the Grants Commission. I lobbied hard with the members of the old commission. The members of the new commission were more open to the argument that I put to them. The commission has made the offer that for a five-year period, councils that choose to amalgamate - and that is the only way they can amalgamate under the current government policy - will have a guarantee of their existing pre-amalgamation funding; and councils have now been advised of that. There will be some debate and discussion about this matter, but I will take the opportunity of writing to the member and giving him - Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon Norman Moore: A real answer! Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the question.
Hon TOM STEPHENS: - an answer that is careful to avoid any of the pitfalls that I might fall into and any of the traps that are laid in the 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.