❓ Ms Guise asks the Minister for Education to confirm the government's commitment to building a primary school in East Marangaroo after a Liberal candidate claimed the government was not being honest about the project. The Minister confirms the commitment and criticizes the candidate's statements.
AnsweredQoN 531Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
PRIMARY SCHOOL, EAST MARANGAROO
I recently met with my local education district director to discuss the process of establishing a consultative community group for the purpose of planning the new primary school at East Marangaroo. It has since come to my attention that the federal Liberal Party candidate for Cowan, Andre Shannon, has written to local residents and stated that the Labor Government is not being open and honest about the prospect of a school at East Marangaroo. Can the minister please confirm that the Government remains committed to this election promise? Mr CARPENTER
I recently met with my local education district director to discuss the process of establishing a consultative community group for the purpose of planning the new primary school at East Marangaroo. It has since come to my attention that the federal Liberal Party candidate for Cowan, Andre Shannon, has written to local residents and stated that the Labor Government is not being open and honest about the prospect of a school at East Marangaroo. Can the minister please confirm that the Government remains committed to this election promise? Mr CARPENTER
AnswerView source ↗
Ned Kelly, in his Jerilderie letter, said - I wish to acquaint you with some of the occurrences of the present past and future. I would like to do that for this candidate. It shocks me, and I am sure it shocks all honest members of Parliament, that a serious candidate from a major political party would, in the context of a federal election campaign, make false and/or misleading statements about something that is of vital importance to the local community. In the run-up to the state election campaign, the Labor Party was involved in discussions with people in that area about the potential to provide a primary school at East Marangaroo. We heard the arguments for it, considered the situation, the population trends and so on, and gave a commitment to provide a new primary school at East Marangaroo. That commitment was made in the run up to the election and was produced in some documents used to promote our successful candidate. She was obviously a good candidate. About $5.5 million was allocated in the budget for the construction of a new primary school at East Marangaroo. Mrs Edwardes: For which year? Mr CARPENTER: It was allocated on the basis that the timing had not yet been negotiated, but it was within the term of this Government. The member for Kingsley knows that because I provided her with supplementary information on the issue. Mr Barnett: Has your party distributed information about this to schoolchildren? Mr CARPENTER: Not that I am aware. Why does the Leader of the Opposition ask? Mr Barnett: Because material distributed by the Labor Party has come to me through schoolchildren. Mr CARPENTER: Some bizarre things come up from the bedrock, particularly from the Flintstones over there. The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
Mr CARPENTER replied: Ned Kelly, in his Jerilderie letter, said - I wish to acquaint you with some of the occurrences of the present past and future. I would like to do that for this candidate. It shocks me, and I am sure it shocks all honest members of Parliament, that a serious candidate from a major political party would, in the context of a federal election campaign, make false and/or misleading statements about something that is of vital importance to the local community. In the run-up to the state election campaign, the Labor Party was involved in discussions with people in that area about the potential to provide a primary school at East Marangaroo. We heard the arguments for it, considered the situation, the population trends and so on, and gave a commitment to provide a new primary school at East Marangaroo. That commitment was made in the run up to the election and was produced in some documents used to promote our successful candidate. She was obviously a good candidate. About $5.5 million was allocated in the budget for the construction of a new primary school at East Marangaroo. Mrs Edwardes: For which year? Mr CARPENTER: It was allocated on the basis that the timing had not yet been negotiated, but it was within the term of this Government. The member for Kingsley knows that because I provided her with supplementary information on the issue. Mr Barnett: Has your party distributed information about this to schoolchildren? Mr CARPENTER: Not that I am aware. Why does the Leader of the Opposition ask? Mr Barnett: Because material distributed by the Labor Party has come to me through schoolchildren. Mr CARPENTER: Some bizarre things come up from the bedrock, particularly from the Flintstones over there. The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
Ned Kelly, in his Jerilderie letter, said - I wish to acquaint you with some of the occurrences of the present past and future. I would like to do that for this candidate. It shocks me, and I am sure it shocks all honest members of Parliament, that a serious candidate from a major political party would, in the context of a federal election campaign, make false and/or misleading statements about something that is of vital importance to the local community. In the run-up to the state election campaign, the Labor Party was involved in discussions with people in that area about the potential to provide a primary school at East Marangaroo. We heard the arguments for it, considered the situation, the population trends and so on, and gave a commitment to provide a new primary school at East Marangaroo. That commitment was made in the run up to the election and was produced in some documents used to promote our successful candidate. She was obviously a good candidate. About $5.5 million was allocated in the budget for the construction of a new primary school at East Marangaroo. Mrs Edwardes: For which year? Mr CARPENTER: It was allocated on the basis that the timing had not yet been negotiated, but it was within the term of this Government. The member for Kingsley knows that because I provided her with supplementary information on the issue. Mr Barnett: Has your party distributed information about this to schoolchildren? Mr CARPENTER: Not that I am aware. Why does the Leader of the Opposition ask? Mr Barnett: Because material distributed by the Labor Party has come to me through schoolchildren. Mr CARPENTER: Some bizarre things come up from the bedrock, particularly from the Flintstones over there. The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
Mrs Edwardes: For which year? Mr CARPENTER: It was allocated on the basis that the timing had not yet been negotiated, but it was within the term of this Government. The member for Kingsley knows that because I provided her with supplementary information on the issue. Mr Barnett: Has your party distributed information about this to schoolchildren? Mr CARPENTER: Not that I am aware. Why does the Leader of the Opposition ask? Mr Barnett: Because material distributed by the Labor Party has come to me through schoolchildren. Mr CARPENTER: Some bizarre things come up from the bedrock, particularly from the Flintstones over there. The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
Mr CARPENTER: It was allocated on the basis that the timing had not yet been negotiated, but it was within the term of this Government. The member for Kingsley knows that because I provided her with supplementary information on the issue. Mr Barnett: Has your party distributed information about this to schoolchildren? Mr CARPENTER: Not that I am aware. Why does the Leader of the Opposition ask? Mr Barnett: Because material distributed by the Labor Party has come to me through schoolchildren. Mr CARPENTER: Some bizarre things come up from the bedrock, particularly from the Flintstones over there. The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
Mr Barnett: Has your party distributed information about this to schoolchildren? Mr CARPENTER: Not that I am aware. Why does the Leader of the Opposition ask? Mr Barnett: Because material distributed by the Labor Party has come to me through schoolchildren. Mr CARPENTER: Some bizarre things come up from the bedrock, particularly from the Flintstones over there. The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
Mr CARPENTER: Not that I am aware. Why does the Leader of the Opposition ask? Mr Barnett: Because material distributed by the Labor Party has come to me through schoolchildren. Mr CARPENTER: Some bizarre things come up from the bedrock, particularly from the Flintstones over there. The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
Mr Barnett: Because material distributed by the Labor Party has come to me through schoolchildren. Mr CARPENTER: Some bizarre things come up from the bedrock, particularly from the Flintstones over there. The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
Mr CARPENTER: Some bizarre things come up from the bedrock, particularly from the Flintstones over there. The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
Mr CARPENTER replied: Ned Kelly, in his Jerilderie letter, said - I wish to acquaint you with some of the occurrences of the present past and future. I would like to do that for this candidate. It shocks me, and I am sure it shocks all honest members of Parliament, that a serious candidate from a major political party would, in the context of a federal election campaign, make false and/or misleading statements about something that is of vital importance to the local community. In the run-up to the state election campaign, the Labor Party was involved in discussions with people in that area about the potential to provide a primary school at East Marangaroo. We heard the arguments for it, considered the situation, the population trends and so on, and gave a commitment to provide a new primary school at East Marangaroo. That commitment was made in the run up to the election and was produced in some documents used to promote our successful candidate. She was obviously a good candidate. About $5.5 million was allocated in the budget for the construction of a new primary school at East Marangaroo. Mrs Edwardes: For which year? Mr CARPENTER: It was allocated on the basis that the timing had not yet been negotiated, but it was within the term of this Government. The member for Kingsley knows that because I provided her with supplementary information on the issue. Mr Barnett: Has your party distributed information about this to schoolchildren? Mr CARPENTER: Not that I am aware. Why does the Leader of the Opposition ask? Mr Barnett: Because material distributed by the Labor Party has come to me through schoolchildren. Mr CARPENTER: Some bizarre things come up from the bedrock, particularly from the Flintstones over there. The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
Ned Kelly, in his Jerilderie letter, said - I wish to acquaint you with some of the occurrences of the present past and future. I would like to do that for this candidate. It shocks me, and I am sure it shocks all honest members of Parliament, that a serious candidate from a major political party would, in the context of a federal election campaign, make false and/or misleading statements about something that is of vital importance to the local community. In the run-up to the state election campaign, the Labor Party was involved in discussions with people in that area about the potential to provide a primary school at East Marangaroo. We heard the arguments for it, considered the situation, the population trends and so on, and gave a commitment to provide a new primary school at East Marangaroo. That commitment was made in the run up to the election and was produced in some documents used to promote our successful candidate. She was obviously a good candidate. About $5.5 million was allocated in the budget for the construction of a new primary school at East Marangaroo. Mrs Edwardes: For which year? Mr CARPENTER: It was allocated on the basis that the timing had not yet been negotiated, but it was within the term of this Government. The member for Kingsley knows that because I provided her with supplementary information on the issue. Mr Barnett: Has your party distributed information about this to schoolchildren? Mr CARPENTER: Not that I am aware. Why does the Leader of the Opposition ask? Mr Barnett: Because material distributed by the Labor Party has come to me through schoolchildren. Mr CARPENTER: Some bizarre things come up from the bedrock, particularly from the Flintstones over there. The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
Mrs Edwardes: For which year? Mr CARPENTER: It was allocated on the basis that the timing had not yet been negotiated, but it was within the term of this Government. The member for Kingsley knows that because I provided her with supplementary information on the issue. Mr Barnett: Has your party distributed information about this to schoolchildren? Mr CARPENTER: Not that I am aware. Why does the Leader of the Opposition ask? Mr Barnett: Because material distributed by the Labor Party has come to me through schoolchildren. Mr CARPENTER: Some bizarre things come up from the bedrock, particularly from the Flintstones over there. The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
Mr CARPENTER: It was allocated on the basis that the timing had not yet been negotiated, but it was within the term of this Government. The member for Kingsley knows that because I provided her with supplementary information on the issue. Mr Barnett: Has your party distributed information about this to schoolchildren? Mr CARPENTER: Not that I am aware. Why does the Leader of the Opposition ask? Mr Barnett: Because material distributed by the Labor Party has come to me through schoolchildren. Mr CARPENTER: Some bizarre things come up from the bedrock, particularly from the Flintstones over there. The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
Mr Barnett: Has your party distributed information about this to schoolchildren? Mr CARPENTER: Not that I am aware. Why does the Leader of the Opposition ask? Mr Barnett: Because material distributed by the Labor Party has come to me through schoolchildren. Mr CARPENTER: Some bizarre things come up from the bedrock, particularly from the Flintstones over there. The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
Mr CARPENTER: Not that I am aware. Why does the Leader of the Opposition ask? Mr Barnett: Because material distributed by the Labor Party has come to me through schoolchildren. Mr CARPENTER: Some bizarre things come up from the bedrock, particularly from the Flintstones over there. The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
Mr Barnett: Because material distributed by the Labor Party has come to me through schoolchildren. Mr CARPENTER: Some bizarre things come up from the bedrock, particularly from the Flintstones over there. The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
Mr CARPENTER: Some bizarre things come up from the bedrock, particularly from the Flintstones over there. The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
The Labor Party promised to provide that primary school and allocated money in the budget to be spent during this term of government. The Labor Party has every intention of fulfilling that promise and developing the primary school at East Marangaroo. These are the sorts of tactics that will leave that candidate unelected. I advise him to try to be honest with the people he wants to support him in the campaign, otherwise, quite rightly, they will not support him. Point of Order Mr DAY: I seek clarification from you, Mr Speaker, of the ruling out of order of the supplementary question that I asked of the Minister for Energy, because it was inappropriate to ask for legal opinions. I was not seeking a legal interpretation or an opinion, which is proscribed in Standing Order No 77. I was seeking a statement of fact from the Minister for Energy on why he had acted lawfully. The Opposition understands that the minister has not acted lawfully, because he should have acted under section 123 of the Energy Operators (Powers) Act 1979, as opposed to section 66(1) of the Electricity Corporation Act 1994, which was included in the material he tabled yesterday. I seek clarification of your ruling that I was seeking a legal opinion, and therefore my question was not out of order. The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
The SPEAKER: My ruling that the question was inappropriate was based on what I heard, and I clearly heard, from the way the question was phrased, that the member for Darling Range was seeking a legal view from the Treasurer. Debate Resumed
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.