❓ The Attorney General froze the Proceeds of Crime Trust Fund program due to concerns about the allocation of funds, particularly the disproportionate distribution to Labor electorates and lack of evidence of value for money in grant assessments, citing a specific example of a community television project receiving repeated funding without demonstrable outcomes.
AnsweredQoN 537Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
PROCEEDS OF CRIME TRUST FUND PROGRAM
I refer to the Attorney General’s recent statement to the effect that the proceeds of crime trust fund program has been shut down and will be overhauled. As many community groups in my electorate would like to apply for these grants, could the Attorney General explain his reasons for freezing the program? Mr C.C. PORTER
I refer to the Attorney General’s recent statement to the effect that the proceeds of crime trust fund program has been shut down and will be overhauled. As many community groups in my electorate would like to apply for these grants, could the Attorney General explain his reasons for freezing the program? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. Ms M.M. Quirk : Here comes the wet lettuce! Mr C.C. PORTER : The member for Girrawheen should listen, as she might enjoy some of this. The program handed out $10.8 million since 2003, and as I stated publicly, 86 per cent of those funds went to Labor electorates. Some members on the other side of the house think that is acceptable and that there are acceptable explanations for that. The government does not think that is acceptable; but people will be their own judge. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In actual fact, Cottesloe has a quite a high crime rate—I am sorry to say that, Premier! In any event, there is a relatively even distribution of crime across the state. However, the important point — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. Ms M.M. Quirk : Here comes the wet lettuce! Mr C.C. PORTER : The member for Girrawheen should listen, as she might enjoy some of this. The program handed out $10.8 million since 2003, and as I stated publicly, 86 per cent of those funds went to Labor electorates. Some members on the other side of the house think that is acceptable and that there are acceptable explanations for that. The government does not think that is acceptable; but people will be their own judge. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In actual fact, Cottesloe has a quite a high crime rate—I am sorry to say that, Premier! In any event, there is a relatively even distribution of crime across the state. However, the important point — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
I thank the member for his question. Ms M.M. Quirk : Here comes the wet lettuce! Mr C.C. PORTER : The member for Girrawheen should listen, as she might enjoy some of this. The program handed out $10.8 million since 2003, and as I stated publicly, 86 per cent of those funds went to Labor electorates. Some members on the other side of the house think that is acceptable and that there are acceptable explanations for that. The government does not think that is acceptable; but people will be their own judge. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In actual fact, Cottesloe has a quite a high crime rate—I am sorry to say that, Premier! In any event, there is a relatively even distribution of crime across the state. However, the important point — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Ms M.M. Quirk : Here comes the wet lettuce! Mr C.C. PORTER : The member for Girrawheen should listen, as she might enjoy some of this. The program handed out $10.8 million since 2003, and as I stated publicly, 86 per cent of those funds went to Labor electorates. Some members on the other side of the house think that is acceptable and that there are acceptable explanations for that. The government does not think that is acceptable; but people will be their own judge. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In actual fact, Cottesloe has a quite a high crime rate—I am sorry to say that, Premier! In any event, there is a relatively even distribution of crime across the state. However, the important point — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : The member for Girrawheen should listen, as she might enjoy some of this. The program handed out $10.8 million since 2003, and as I stated publicly, 86 per cent of those funds went to Labor electorates. Some members on the other side of the house think that is acceptable and that there are acceptable explanations for that. The government does not think that is acceptable; but people will be their own judge. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In actual fact, Cottesloe has a quite a high crime rate—I am sorry to say that, Premier! In any event, there is a relatively even distribution of crime across the state. However, the important point — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
The program handed out $10.8 million since 2003, and as I stated publicly, 86 per cent of those funds went to Labor electorates. Some members on the other side of the house think that is acceptable and that there are acceptable explanations for that. The government does not think that is acceptable; but people will be their own judge. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In actual fact, Cottesloe has a quite a high crime rate—I am sorry to say that, Premier! In any event, there is a relatively even distribution of crime across the state. However, the important point — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In actual fact, Cottesloe has a quite a high crime rate—I am sorry to say that, Premier! In any event, there is a relatively even distribution of crime across the state. However, the important point — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : In actual fact, Cottesloe has a quite a high crime rate—I am sorry to say that, Premier! In any event, there is a relatively even distribution of crime across the state. However, the important point — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. Ms M.M. Quirk : Here comes the wet lettuce! Mr C.C. PORTER : The member for Girrawheen should listen, as she might enjoy some of this. The program handed out $10.8 million since 2003, and as I stated publicly, 86 per cent of those funds went to Labor electorates. Some members on the other side of the house think that is acceptable and that there are acceptable explanations for that. The government does not think that is acceptable; but people will be their own judge. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In actual fact, Cottesloe has a quite a high crime rate—I am sorry to say that, Premier! In any event, there is a relatively even distribution of crime across the state. However, the important point — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
I thank the member for his question. Ms M.M. Quirk : Here comes the wet lettuce! Mr C.C. PORTER : The member for Girrawheen should listen, as she might enjoy some of this. The program handed out $10.8 million since 2003, and as I stated publicly, 86 per cent of those funds went to Labor electorates. Some members on the other side of the house think that is acceptable and that there are acceptable explanations for that. The government does not think that is acceptable; but people will be their own judge. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In actual fact, Cottesloe has a quite a high crime rate—I am sorry to say that, Premier! In any event, there is a relatively even distribution of crime across the state. However, the important point — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Ms M.M. Quirk : Here comes the wet lettuce! Mr C.C. PORTER : The member for Girrawheen should listen, as she might enjoy some of this. The program handed out $10.8 million since 2003, and as I stated publicly, 86 per cent of those funds went to Labor electorates. Some members on the other side of the house think that is acceptable and that there are acceptable explanations for that. The government does not think that is acceptable; but people will be their own judge. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In actual fact, Cottesloe has a quite a high crime rate—I am sorry to say that, Premier! In any event, there is a relatively even distribution of crime across the state. However, the important point — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : The member for Girrawheen should listen, as she might enjoy some of this. The program handed out $10.8 million since 2003, and as I stated publicly, 86 per cent of those funds went to Labor electorates. Some members on the other side of the house think that is acceptable and that there are acceptable explanations for that. The government does not think that is acceptable; but people will be their own judge. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In actual fact, Cottesloe has a quite a high crime rate—I am sorry to say that, Premier! In any event, there is a relatively even distribution of crime across the state. However, the important point — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
The program handed out $10.8 million since 2003, and as I stated publicly, 86 per cent of those funds went to Labor electorates. Some members on the other side of the house think that is acceptable and that there are acceptable explanations for that. The government does not think that is acceptable; but people will be their own judge. Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In actual fact, Cottesloe has a quite a high crime rate—I am sorry to say that, Premier! In any event, there is a relatively even distribution of crime across the state. However, the important point — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : In actual fact, Cottesloe has a quite a high crime rate—I am sorry to say that, Premier! In any event, there is a relatively even distribution of crime across the state. However, the important point — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : In actual fact, Cottesloe has a quite a high crime rate—I am sorry to say that, Premier! In any event, there is a relatively even distribution of crime across the state. However, the important point — Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Several members interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here, Mr Speaker — Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
The SPEAKER : I would like to hear the answer to the question that the Attorney General has been asked. Thank you, members on both sides. Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : The important point here is that there were guidelines to direct the member for Perth’s committee that were extensive and clear, including that funding will not be granted for the purchase of vehicles, property, or recurrent funding. Additional criteria stated that applicants must have demonstrated a capacity to carry out the project effectively and manage the financial obligations of the proposed project, and show the extent to which the proposal will provide value for money. I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
I will give members in this house one example of why there are questions that need answering on this matter. Do members remember the community television example from round three? A community television production project asked for money from the committee. It wanted to produce a 12-month, 13-episode, 26-minute documentary on crime prevention, with a commencement date of January 2006 and a completion date of January 2007. It was allocated $79 000 on the recommendation of the member for Perth as chair of the committee. It was claimed that the project would be completed and go to air by late 2006, and we would all get to see it on community television. That was in round three. The following year, in round four—keeping in mind that there was to be no recurrent funding, and that recipients of project funding were required to be able to demonstrate value for money and have a demonstrated capacity to manage the financial obligations of any proposed project—the production project was allocated a further $86 000 for the same documentary. After the date that the program was supposed to have gone to air, the project was given double its original budget to produce the same program. This is why the audit report concluded — Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr J.N. Hyde : What are you alleging against public servants? Come on, have the guts to make the allegations! You don’t, do you? Weak as. The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
The SPEAKER : I know that the member for Perth has an abiding interest in this matter, and that other members in this place also have an abiding interest in the issue being discussed. I suggest that if the member is going to ask questions, he do so with a more appropriate interjection. I formally call the member for the first time. Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : The member should not hide behind public servants. He was the chair of the committee that handed out $10.8 million, and the audit concluded that there was no evidence that the approved grants provided value for money or that they had been assessed to determine whether they provided value for money. The audit concluded that there was no documentary evidence to show that the committee, in recommending the grants, had assessed the applications against the selection criteria or clearly stated why the grants should be recommended. It also concluded that there was no evidence to show that reports had been prepared or that the committee had reported to the Attorney General for review. Was a six-month review ever carried out, as was required for that project, member for Perth? Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr J.N. Hyde : Rubbish. Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr C.C. PORTER : What does the member mean, “rubbish”? It is all there; he should get on the internet, read the report and answer the questions. Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
Mr J.N. Hyde interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
The SPEAKER : Member for Perth, I have given the call to the member for Midland. The member knows the process in this place. I have already spoken to him, and he understands. I formally call the member for Perth for the second time.
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.