❓ Premier Gallop defends WA's public liability reform progress, claiming it's second only to NSW, while attacking the opposition leader's credibility and past actions.
AnsweredQoN 329Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Can the Premier explain how Western Australia’s response to the public liability crisis compares with the responses of other States? Dr G.I. GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
Earlier today I had the pleasure - indeed, I did it with a great deal of pride - to wish well the firefighters from Western Australia who have taken up the challenge to assist the people of New South Wales. One hundred firefighters have gone to New South Wales, 80 of whom are volunteers who have given up their holidays and some of their family commitments. I am sure everyone in the House joins with me in wishing them well and thanking them for their contribution to our community. While returning from the airport, I tuned in to the 11 o’clock news and I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that Western Australia was the slowest of all the States and was behind all the other States on the public liability insurance issue. He is making a habit of this. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that in that position he can say anything and because of the courtesy of the media, they will report him and he will get away with it. However, if the people of Western Australia subject his comments to the accountability of the truth, they will work out where he stands in politics. Let us look at the situation. There is no doubt that New South Wales leads the way in the response to the public liability crisis. It has introduced and passed the first stage of its reforms and has introduced the second stage of reforms as recommended in general terms by the Ipp inquiry, which reported on 30 September 2002. Western Australia has passed three Bills. We have passed the Civil Liability Bill, the first stage of tort law reform. We have passed the Bill giving the Government the ability to support non-government organisations that offer an important service, such as the police and citizens youth clubs and the people building the wonderful one mile jetty in Carnarvon, to ensure those important services stay in operation. We have also passed the Bill that will protect our volunteers in the work they do. Today we announced the raft of second stage reforms that will be introduced as recommended by Justice Ipp. What have the other States done? Queensland has passed one Bill and is yet to announce its response to Justice Ipp. Victoria has announced a general framework of reform but has not yet introduced legislation to the Parliament. South Australia has taken the first stage of reforms through but has not yet announced its second stage reforms. Tasmania has introduced some general policies but has not introduced any specific legislation. I do not think there is any doubt that Western Australia is right up there next to New South Wales; it is behind New South Wales but ahead of the other States. What this issue is about - Mr C.J. Barnett: You have been hopeless on this! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will ask the Leader of the Opposition a question: when did the Ipp report come out? Mr C.J. Barnett: I do not know when it came out. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: Earlier today I had the pleasure - indeed, I did it with a great deal of pride - to wish well the firefighters from Western Australia who have taken up the challenge to assist the people of New South Wales. One hundred firefighters have gone to New South Wales, 80 of whom are volunteers who have given up their holidays and some of their family commitments. I am sure everyone in the House joins with me in wishing them well and thanking them for their contribution to our community. While returning from the airport, I tuned in to the 11 o’clock news and I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that Western Australia was the slowest of all the States and was behind all the other States on the public liability insurance issue. He is making a habit of this. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that in that position he can say anything and because of the courtesy of the media, they will report him and he will get away with it. However, if the people of Western Australia subject his comments to the accountability of the truth, they will work out where he stands in politics. Let us look at the situation. There is no doubt that New South Wales leads the way in the response to the public liability crisis. It has introduced and passed the first stage of its reforms and has introduced the second stage of reforms as recommended in general terms by the Ipp inquiry, which reported on 30 September 2002. Western Australia has passed three Bills. We have passed the Civil Liability Bill, the first stage of tort law reform. We have passed the Bill giving the Government the ability to support non-government organisations that offer an important service, such as the police and citizens youth clubs and the people building the wonderful one mile jetty in Carnarvon, to ensure those important services stay in operation. We have also passed the Bill that will protect our volunteers in the work they do. Today we announced the raft of second stage reforms that will be introduced as recommended by Justice Ipp. What have the other States done? Queensland has passed one Bill and is yet to announce its response to Justice Ipp. Victoria has announced a general framework of reform but has not yet introduced legislation to the Parliament. South Australia has taken the first stage of reforms through but has not yet announced its second stage reforms. Tasmania has introduced some general policies but has not introduced any specific legislation. I do not think there is any doubt that Western Australia is right up there next to New South Wales; it is behind New South Wales but ahead of the other States. What this issue is about - Mr C.J. Barnett: You have been hopeless on this! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will ask the Leader of the Opposition a question: when did the Ipp report come out? Mr C.J. Barnett: I do not know when it came out. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Earlier today I had the pleasure - indeed, I did it with a great deal of pride - to wish well the firefighters from Western Australia who have taken up the challenge to assist the people of New South Wales. One hundred firefighters have gone to New South Wales, 80 of whom are volunteers who have given up their holidays and some of their family commitments. I am sure everyone in the House joins with me in wishing them well and thanking them for their contribution to our community. While returning from the airport, I tuned in to the 11 o’clock news and I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that Western Australia was the slowest of all the States and was behind all the other States on the public liability insurance issue. He is making a habit of this. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that in that position he can say anything and because of the courtesy of the media, they will report him and he will get away with it. However, if the people of Western Australia subject his comments to the accountability of the truth, they will work out where he stands in politics. Let us look at the situation. There is no doubt that New South Wales leads the way in the response to the public liability crisis. It has introduced and passed the first stage of its reforms and has introduced the second stage of reforms as recommended in general terms by the Ipp inquiry, which reported on 30 September 2002. Western Australia has passed three Bills. We have passed the Civil Liability Bill, the first stage of tort law reform. We have passed the Bill giving the Government the ability to support non-government organisations that offer an important service, such as the police and citizens youth clubs and the people building the wonderful one mile jetty in Carnarvon, to ensure those important services stay in operation. We have also passed the Bill that will protect our volunteers in the work they do. Today we announced the raft of second stage reforms that will be introduced as recommended by Justice Ipp. What have the other States done? Queensland has passed one Bill and is yet to announce its response to Justice Ipp. Victoria has announced a general framework of reform but has not yet introduced legislation to the Parliament. South Australia has taken the first stage of reforms through but has not yet announced its second stage reforms. Tasmania has introduced some general policies but has not introduced any specific legislation. I do not think there is any doubt that Western Australia is right up there next to New South Wales; it is behind New South Wales but ahead of the other States. What this issue is about - Mr C.J. Barnett: You have been hopeless on this! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will ask the Leader of the Opposition a question: when did the Ipp report come out? Mr C.J. Barnett: I do not know when it came out. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
While returning from the airport, I tuned in to the 11 o’clock news and I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that Western Australia was the slowest of all the States and was behind all the other States on the public liability insurance issue. He is making a habit of this. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that in that position he can say anything and because of the courtesy of the media, they will report him and he will get away with it. However, if the people of Western Australia subject his comments to the accountability of the truth, they will work out where he stands in politics. Let us look at the situation. There is no doubt that New South Wales leads the way in the response to the public liability crisis. It has introduced and passed the first stage of its reforms and has introduced the second stage of reforms as recommended in general terms by the Ipp inquiry, which reported on 30 September 2002. Western Australia has passed three Bills. We have passed the Civil Liability Bill, the first stage of tort law reform. We have passed the Bill giving the Government the ability to support non-government organisations that offer an important service, such as the police and citizens youth clubs and the people building the wonderful one mile jetty in Carnarvon, to ensure those important services stay in operation. We have also passed the Bill that will protect our volunteers in the work they do. Today we announced the raft of second stage reforms that will be introduced as recommended by Justice Ipp. What have the other States done? Queensland has passed one Bill and is yet to announce its response to Justice Ipp. Victoria has announced a general framework of reform but has not yet introduced legislation to the Parliament. South Australia has taken the first stage of reforms through but has not yet announced its second stage reforms. Tasmania has introduced some general policies but has not introduced any specific legislation. I do not think there is any doubt that Western Australia is right up there next to New South Wales; it is behind New South Wales but ahead of the other States. What this issue is about - Mr C.J. Barnett: You have been hopeless on this! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will ask the Leader of the Opposition a question: when did the Ipp report come out? Mr C.J. Barnett: I do not know when it came out. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Let us look at the situation. There is no doubt that New South Wales leads the way in the response to the public liability crisis. It has introduced and passed the first stage of its reforms and has introduced the second stage of reforms as recommended in general terms by the Ipp inquiry, which reported on 30 September 2002. Western Australia has passed three Bills. We have passed the Civil Liability Bill, the first stage of tort law reform. We have passed the Bill giving the Government the ability to support non-government organisations that offer an important service, such as the police and citizens youth clubs and the people building the wonderful one mile jetty in Carnarvon, to ensure those important services stay in operation. We have also passed the Bill that will protect our volunteers in the work they do. Today we announced the raft of second stage reforms that will be introduced as recommended by Justice Ipp. What have the other States done? Queensland has passed one Bill and is yet to announce its response to Justice Ipp. Victoria has announced a general framework of reform but has not yet introduced legislation to the Parliament. South Australia has taken the first stage of reforms through but has not yet announced its second stage reforms. Tasmania has introduced some general policies but has not introduced any specific legislation. I do not think there is any doubt that Western Australia is right up there next to New South Wales; it is behind New South Wales but ahead of the other States. What this issue is about - Mr C.J. Barnett: You have been hopeless on this! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will ask the Leader of the Opposition a question: when did the Ipp report come out? Mr C.J. Barnett: I do not know when it came out. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
What have the other States done? Queensland has passed one Bill and is yet to announce its response to Justice Ipp. Victoria has announced a general framework of reform but has not yet introduced legislation to the Parliament. South Australia has taken the first stage of reforms through but has not yet announced its second stage reforms. Tasmania has introduced some general policies but has not introduced any specific legislation. I do not think there is any doubt that Western Australia is right up there next to New South Wales; it is behind New South Wales but ahead of the other States. What this issue is about - Mr C.J. Barnett: You have been hopeless on this! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will ask the Leader of the Opposition a question: when did the Ipp report come out? Mr C.J. Barnett: I do not know when it came out. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Mr C.J. Barnett: You have been hopeless on this! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will ask the Leader of the Opposition a question: when did the Ipp report come out? Mr C.J. Barnett: I do not know when it came out. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will ask the Leader of the Opposition a question: when did the Ipp report come out? Mr C.J. Barnett: I do not know when it came out. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Mr C.J. Barnett: I do not know when it came out. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
“It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . .
“He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . .
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: Earlier today I had the pleasure - indeed, I did it with a great deal of pride - to wish well the firefighters from Western Australia who have taken up the challenge to assist the people of New South Wales. One hundred firefighters have gone to New South Wales, 80 of whom are volunteers who have given up their holidays and some of their family commitments. I am sure everyone in the House joins with me in wishing them well and thanking them for their contribution to our community. While returning from the airport, I tuned in to the 11 o’clock news and I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that Western Australia was the slowest of all the States and was behind all the other States on the public liability insurance issue. He is making a habit of this. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that in that position he can say anything and because of the courtesy of the media, they will report him and he will get away with it. However, if the people of Western Australia subject his comments to the accountability of the truth, they will work out where he stands in politics. Let us look at the situation. There is no doubt that New South Wales leads the way in the response to the public liability crisis. It has introduced and passed the first stage of its reforms and has introduced the second stage of reforms as recommended in general terms by the Ipp inquiry, which reported on 30 September 2002. Western Australia has passed three Bills. We have passed the Civil Liability Bill, the first stage of tort law reform. We have passed the Bill giving the Government the ability to support non-government organisations that offer an important service, such as the police and citizens youth clubs and the people building the wonderful one mile jetty in Carnarvon, to ensure those important services stay in operation. We have also passed the Bill that will protect our volunteers in the work they do. Today we announced the raft of second stage reforms that will be introduced as recommended by Justice Ipp. What have the other States done? Queensland has passed one Bill and is yet to announce its response to Justice Ipp. Victoria has announced a general framework of reform but has not yet introduced legislation to the Parliament. South Australia has taken the first stage of reforms through but has not yet announced its second stage reforms. Tasmania has introduced some general policies but has not introduced any specific legislation. I do not think there is any doubt that Western Australia is right up there next to New South Wales; it is behind New South Wales but ahead of the other States. What this issue is about - Mr C.J. Barnett: You have been hopeless on this! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will ask the Leader of the Opposition a question: when did the Ipp report come out? Mr C.J. Barnett: I do not know when it came out. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Earlier today I had the pleasure - indeed, I did it with a great deal of pride - to wish well the firefighters from Western Australia who have taken up the challenge to assist the people of New South Wales. One hundred firefighters have gone to New South Wales, 80 of whom are volunteers who have given up their holidays and some of their family commitments. I am sure everyone in the House joins with me in wishing them well and thanking them for their contribution to our community. While returning from the airport, I tuned in to the 11 o’clock news and I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that Western Australia was the slowest of all the States and was behind all the other States on the public liability insurance issue. He is making a habit of this. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that in that position he can say anything and because of the courtesy of the media, they will report him and he will get away with it. However, if the people of Western Australia subject his comments to the accountability of the truth, they will work out where he stands in politics. Let us look at the situation. There is no doubt that New South Wales leads the way in the response to the public liability crisis. It has introduced and passed the first stage of its reforms and has introduced the second stage of reforms as recommended in general terms by the Ipp inquiry, which reported on 30 September 2002. Western Australia has passed three Bills. We have passed the Civil Liability Bill, the first stage of tort law reform. We have passed the Bill giving the Government the ability to support non-government organisations that offer an important service, such as the police and citizens youth clubs and the people building the wonderful one mile jetty in Carnarvon, to ensure those important services stay in operation. We have also passed the Bill that will protect our volunteers in the work they do. Today we announced the raft of second stage reforms that will be introduced as recommended by Justice Ipp. What have the other States done? Queensland has passed one Bill and is yet to announce its response to Justice Ipp. Victoria has announced a general framework of reform but has not yet introduced legislation to the Parliament. South Australia has taken the first stage of reforms through but has not yet announced its second stage reforms. Tasmania has introduced some general policies but has not introduced any specific legislation. I do not think there is any doubt that Western Australia is right up there next to New South Wales; it is behind New South Wales but ahead of the other States. What this issue is about - Mr C.J. Barnett: You have been hopeless on this! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will ask the Leader of the Opposition a question: when did the Ipp report come out? Mr C.J. Barnett: I do not know when it came out. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
While returning from the airport, I tuned in to the 11 o’clock news and I heard the Leader of the Opposition say that Western Australia was the slowest of all the States and was behind all the other States on the public liability insurance issue. He is making a habit of this. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that in that position he can say anything and because of the courtesy of the media, they will report him and he will get away with it. However, if the people of Western Australia subject his comments to the accountability of the truth, they will work out where he stands in politics. Let us look at the situation. There is no doubt that New South Wales leads the way in the response to the public liability crisis. It has introduced and passed the first stage of its reforms and has introduced the second stage of reforms as recommended in general terms by the Ipp inquiry, which reported on 30 September 2002. Western Australia has passed three Bills. We have passed the Civil Liability Bill, the first stage of tort law reform. We have passed the Bill giving the Government the ability to support non-government organisations that offer an important service, such as the police and citizens youth clubs and the people building the wonderful one mile jetty in Carnarvon, to ensure those important services stay in operation. We have also passed the Bill that will protect our volunteers in the work they do. Today we announced the raft of second stage reforms that will be introduced as recommended by Justice Ipp. What have the other States done? Queensland has passed one Bill and is yet to announce its response to Justice Ipp. Victoria has announced a general framework of reform but has not yet introduced legislation to the Parliament. South Australia has taken the first stage of reforms through but has not yet announced its second stage reforms. Tasmania has introduced some general policies but has not introduced any specific legislation. I do not think there is any doubt that Western Australia is right up there next to New South Wales; it is behind New South Wales but ahead of the other States. What this issue is about - Mr C.J. Barnett: You have been hopeless on this! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will ask the Leader of the Opposition a question: when did the Ipp report come out? Mr C.J. Barnett: I do not know when it came out. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Let us look at the situation. There is no doubt that New South Wales leads the way in the response to the public liability crisis. It has introduced and passed the first stage of its reforms and has introduced the second stage of reforms as recommended in general terms by the Ipp inquiry, which reported on 30 September 2002. Western Australia has passed three Bills. We have passed the Civil Liability Bill, the first stage of tort law reform. We have passed the Bill giving the Government the ability to support non-government organisations that offer an important service, such as the police and citizens youth clubs and the people building the wonderful one mile jetty in Carnarvon, to ensure those important services stay in operation. We have also passed the Bill that will protect our volunteers in the work they do. Today we announced the raft of second stage reforms that will be introduced as recommended by Justice Ipp. What have the other States done? Queensland has passed one Bill and is yet to announce its response to Justice Ipp. Victoria has announced a general framework of reform but has not yet introduced legislation to the Parliament. South Australia has taken the first stage of reforms through but has not yet announced its second stage reforms. Tasmania has introduced some general policies but has not introduced any specific legislation. I do not think there is any doubt that Western Australia is right up there next to New South Wales; it is behind New South Wales but ahead of the other States. What this issue is about - Mr C.J. Barnett: You have been hopeless on this! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will ask the Leader of the Opposition a question: when did the Ipp report come out? Mr C.J. Barnett: I do not know when it came out. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
What have the other States done? Queensland has passed one Bill and is yet to announce its response to Justice Ipp. Victoria has announced a general framework of reform but has not yet introduced legislation to the Parliament. South Australia has taken the first stage of reforms through but has not yet announced its second stage reforms. Tasmania has introduced some general policies but has not introduced any specific legislation. I do not think there is any doubt that Western Australia is right up there next to New South Wales; it is behind New South Wales but ahead of the other States. What this issue is about - Mr C.J. Barnett: You have been hopeless on this! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will ask the Leader of the Opposition a question: when did the Ipp report come out? Mr C.J. Barnett: I do not know when it came out. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Mr C.J. Barnett: You have been hopeless on this! Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will ask the Leader of the Opposition a question: when did the Ipp report come out? Mr C.J. Barnett: I do not know when it came out. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: I will ask the Leader of the Opposition a question: when did the Ipp report come out? Mr C.J. Barnett: I do not know when it came out. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Mr C.J. Barnett: I do not know when it came out. Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: He does not know! He does not care! The Ipp report came out on 30 September, and we have announced our reforms. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility problem. A few days ago he criticised us for bringing forward the timetable for the South Perth railway station. I think he described it as a secret backroom deal, or words to that effect. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition does not have a very long memory. Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Do members recall the passage of the legislation to privatise AlintaGas? The new members of Parliament might not remember the AlintaGas privatisation, but the people of Western Australia remember it, because a strategic asset of the State was sold off by the Liberals. Let us look at how that legislation went through the Parliament. In order to get his legislation through the Parliament, the Leader of the Opposition needed the vote of the Independent member Mr Mark Nevill. Do members know what he gave Mr Mark Nevill? He gave him $12 million in promises to get that legislation through the Parliament. This is what was reported at the time - Mr Barnett defended the deal completed with Mr Nevill to get the legislation passed . . . “It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . . The Leader of the Opposition did not buy Mr Nevill’s vote but he did respond to his bid. In my language, when a bid goes in - Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
“It was not a matter of buying Mr Nevill’s vote . . . “He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . .
“He has put in a bid that we use some of the proceeds on some projects he regards as important . . .
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
The SPEAKER: Members, I cannot hear the member speaking to the point of order. It will take a helluva long time to get through the point of order if I cannot hear the member. Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Mr M.J. BIRNEY: Thankfully, there is no requirement under standing orders for the Premier’s answer to be intelligent, interesting or even coherent. However, there is a requirement for the Premier’s answer to be relevant and I draw your attention, Mr Speaker, to Standing Order No 78 in that regard. I recall that the question was specifically about public liability insurance. The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie’s point of order is quite accurate. Answers should be relevant to the question. I am sure the Premier will bring that part of his answer to a conclusion. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: My answer is all about the credibility of comments. It is about the credibility of people when they say things about the political situation in our State and they know they are not true. That is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. He says just anything, no matter what the facts are. Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Mr C.J. Barnett: You are misleading this Parliament! Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: Does the Leader of the Opposition know what his trouble is? He has worms on his soul. He has no sense of humour. He does not know the difference between truth and untruth, and he says anything. He has worms wriggling their way around his soul. I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
I turn to the issue of definition. If a person puts in a bid and someone responds to it, is that not a purchase? It is a purchase. The Leader of the Opposition’s credibility is on the line. Point of Order Mr M.J. BIRNEY: As I understand it, the question was specifically about public liability insurance. Once again, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Order No 78. The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
The SPEAKER: It is the same point of order and it is the same ruling. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr G.I. GALLOP: I have finished.
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.