❓ Question regarding the decision to end support for Rally Australia and related tourism funding. The Minister defends the decision based on economic concerns and highlights increased tourism funding overall.
AnsweredQoN 9Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
Hon NORMAN MOORE : I am not sure who is the minister’s representative at this particular time. The PRESIDENT : I am sure someone will get up to answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Do not bet on it, Mr President, because I am not sure that the government knows just who is representing whom yet. We hope that the government will eventually work it out. Hon Ken Travers : I will be interested to see who is the Leader of the Opposition after 22 May. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I am sure the member is waiting with bated breath. Hon Simon O’Brien interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! The Leader of the Opposition is trying to ask a question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I refer the minister to the decision to end support for Rally Australia. (1) Will the minister table the full evaluation report upon which the decision was made; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
The PRESIDENT : I am sure someone will get up to answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Do not bet on it, Mr President, because I am not sure that the government knows just who is representing whom yet. We hope that the government will eventually work it out. Hon Ken Travers : I will be interested to see who is the Leader of the Opposition after 22 May. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I am sure the member is waiting with bated breath. Hon Simon O’Brien interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! The Leader of the Opposition is trying to ask a question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I refer the minister to the decision to end support for Rally Australia. (1) Will the minister table the full evaluation report upon which the decision was made; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : Do not bet on it, Mr President, because I am not sure that the government knows just who is representing whom yet. We hope that the government will eventually work it out. Hon Ken Travers : I will be interested to see who is the Leader of the Opposition after 22 May. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I am sure the member is waiting with bated breath. Hon Simon O’Brien interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! The Leader of the Opposition is trying to ask a question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I refer the minister to the decision to end support for Rally Australia. (1) Will the minister table the full evaluation report upon which the decision was made; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
Hon Ken Travers : I will be interested to see who is the Leader of the Opposition after 22 May. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I am sure the member is waiting with bated breath. Hon Simon O’Brien interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! The Leader of the Opposition is trying to ask a question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I refer the minister to the decision to end support for Rally Australia. (1) Will the minister table the full evaluation report upon which the decision was made; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I am sure the member is waiting with bated breath. Hon Simon O’Brien interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! The Leader of the Opposition is trying to ask a question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I refer the minister to the decision to end support for Rally Australia. (1) Will the minister table the full evaluation report upon which the decision was made; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
Hon Simon O’Brien interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! The Leader of the Opposition is trying to ask a question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I refer the minister to the decision to end support for Rally Australia. (1) Will the minister table the full evaluation report upon which the decision was made; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
The PRESIDENT : Order, members! The Leader of the Opposition is trying to ask a question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I refer the minister to the decision to end support for Rally Australia. (1) Will the minister table the full evaluation report upon which the decision was made; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : I refer the minister to the decision to end support for Rally Australia. (1) Will the minister table the full evaluation report upon which the decision was made; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(1) Will the minister table the full evaluation report upon which the decision was made; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
The PRESIDENT : I am sure someone will get up to answer. Hon NORMAN MOORE : Do not bet on it, Mr President, because I am not sure that the government knows just who is representing whom yet. We hope that the government will eventually work it out. Hon Ken Travers : I will be interested to see who is the Leader of the Opposition after 22 May. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I am sure the member is waiting with bated breath. Hon Simon O’Brien interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! The Leader of the Opposition is trying to ask a question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I refer the minister to the decision to end support for Rally Australia. (1) Will the minister table the full evaluation report upon which the decision was made; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : Do not bet on it, Mr President, because I am not sure that the government knows just who is representing whom yet. We hope that the government will eventually work it out. Hon Ken Travers : I will be interested to see who is the Leader of the Opposition after 22 May. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I am sure the member is waiting with bated breath. Hon Simon O’Brien interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! The Leader of the Opposition is trying to ask a question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I refer the minister to the decision to end support for Rally Australia. (1) Will the minister table the full evaluation report upon which the decision was made; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
Hon Ken Travers : I will be interested to see who is the Leader of the Opposition after 22 May. Hon NORMAN MOORE: I am sure the member is waiting with bated breath. Hon Simon O’Brien interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! The Leader of the Opposition is trying to ask a question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I refer the minister to the decision to end support for Rally Australia. (1) Will the minister table the full evaluation report upon which the decision was made; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
Hon NORMAN MOORE: I am sure the member is waiting with bated breath. Hon Simon O’Brien interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! The Leader of the Opposition is trying to ask a question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I refer the minister to the decision to end support for Rally Australia. (1) Will the minister table the full evaluation report upon which the decision was made; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
Hon Simon O’Brien interjected. The PRESIDENT : Order, members! The Leader of the Opposition is trying to ask a question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I refer the minister to the decision to end support for Rally Australia. (1) Will the minister table the full evaluation report upon which the decision was made; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
The PRESIDENT : Order, members! The Leader of the Opposition is trying to ask a question. Hon NORMAN MOORE : I refer the minister to the decision to end support for Rally Australia. (1) Will the minister table the full evaluation report upon which the decision was made; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : I refer the minister to the decision to end support for Rally Australia. (1) Will the minister table the full evaluation report upon which the decision was made; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(1) Will the minister table the full evaluation report upon which the decision was made; and, if not, why not? (2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(2) Will the minister indicate what international events he is proposing to target as a replacement for the rally? (3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(3) Did the minister endeavour to obtain an additional $5 million in tourism funding from the Treasurer before making the decision to end the rally contract; and, if not, why not? (4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(4) If additional funding was sought from the Treasurer, will the minister indicate the reasons given by the Treasurer for rejecting such an application; and, if not, why not? (5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(5) Will the minister request additional funding through the budget submission process in order to retain the rally; and, if not, why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for some notice of the question. (1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(1) The decision was made based on numerous economic reports, financial evaluations and recommendations from the Tourism Western Australia Board of Commissioners. (2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(2) EventsCorp is analysing a number of domestic and international events to be held in various years up to 2012. The details of events are kept confidential until contracts are secured, due to the competitive nature of the procurement of events. (3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(3) No. The decision of the government to seek to end its contract for Rally Australia in 2006 was made in light of concerns over the economic return and media impact achieved against the high cost of the event. This decision was not related to other tourism funding requirements. Members should note that the government provided additional funding of $1.107 million in 2004-05 and 2006-07 to meet the increasing costs of staging Rally Australia. However, it should also be noted that the government has allocated an additional $17.4 million in tourism funding for 2004-05 to 2009-10, via its plan to boost tourism. (4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(4) Not applicable. (5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
(5) No. Refer to (3) above. The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
The two dates that I gave from the written answer refer to the year 2009-09, but I said 2009-2010 because I presume that is what the author meant.
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.