❓ Opposition questions the Premier regarding the Member for Scarborough's alleged lobbying and conflict of interest related to a fisheries decision and her company, SandCastles Pty Ltd. The Premier avoids directly answering, dismissing the issue as trivial and a waste of parliamentary time.
AnsweredQoN 158Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
FISHING RESTRICTIONS — MEMBER FOR SCARBOROUGH
I will ask two questions in light of the answer given on the Premier’s behalf in the Legislative Council on 3 December. My first is — (1) Will the Premier confirm for this house that the member for Scarborough personally lobbied the Minister for Fisheries before the minister made his controversial decision to reverse a proposed ban on Western Australia’s vulnerable fish species? (2) What steps has the Premier taken to ascertain whether the member for Scarborough declared her conflict of interest; namely, that as a director and shareholder of SandCastles Pty Ltd, she stood to make some significant financial gain from this decision? (3) Does the Premier think the member’s actions are acceptable? Mr C.J. BARNETT
I will ask two questions in light of the answer given on the Premier’s behalf in the Legislative Council on 3 December. My first is — (1) Will the Premier confirm for this house that the member for Scarborough personally lobbied the Minister for Fisheries before the minister made his controversial decision to reverse a proposed ban on Western Australia’s vulnerable fish species? (2) What steps has the Premier taken to ascertain whether the member for Scarborough declared her conflict of interest; namely, that as a director and shareholder of SandCastles Pty Ltd, she stood to make some significant financial gain from this decision? (3) Does the Premier think the member’s actions are acceptable? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) Fancy bringing Parliament back to ask a question about sandcastles. That says it all about this crowd opposite—it absolutely says it all! Sandcastles and playing in the sand with buckets and shovels is about all the opposition is capable of. Buckets and shovels in the sand—what a joke! What an absolute joke is the Leader of the Opposition. Here we are back in Parliament, having spent thousands of dollars flying members back from all over the state, and for what? It is to debate an amendment, which reads — A court sentencing an offender to a fixed term can impose a penalty up to the statutory penalty … Congratulations! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the question was quite specifically about the behaviour of a member of Parliament and whether that member of Parliament revealed a personal interest in a matter. I realise that the Premier had this answer prepared before question time, and that he was going to read it out no matter what, but the answer is not relevant to the question that was asked. I ask that the Premier be brought back to the question that was asked. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is a convention of this house that when answering a question from the opposition, the minister will give the answer that the minister wishes to give. It may not be the answer that the opposition wants, but that is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : I am sure that if the Premier has more to say about this matter, he will add to his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I had to be inventive because, after all these weeks, here we go, once again: the opposition is going on about the member for Scarborough. What a farce! The opposition ran two motions on the appointment of Peter Conran. The opposition ran the motion once and did not get anywhere; therefore, it ran it again. Then the opposition ran for a week on the member for Scarborough. And here we are: the opposition brought Parliament back to ask me a question about the member for Scarborough and sandcastles! Is that why we are back here? Are we back to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough? What a farce! Members have flown back to Perth from all around the state to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough. Well done, Leader of the Opposition—he is right on the ball! Did he not notice that there is a bit of trouble going on in this country in the financial and resources sectors? Did he notice that a bit of work is being done to try to get some big resource projects up in this state? Did he not notice that there are a few issues out there? No. He brings Parliament back to ask a question about an issue debated two weeks ago in relation to the member for Scarborough. I have answered that ad nauseam. The minister responsible for fisheries has answered ad nauseam. Let me say this: I have absolute confidence in both the member for Scarborough and the Minister for Fisheries.
(1) Will the Premier confirm for this house that the member for Scarborough personally lobbied the Minister for Fisheries before the minister made his controversial decision to reverse a proposed ban on Western Australia’s vulnerable fish species? (2) What steps has the Premier taken to ascertain whether the member for Scarborough declared her conflict of interest; namely, that as a director and shareholder of SandCastles Pty Ltd, she stood to make some significant financial gain from this decision? (3) Does the Premier think the member’s actions are acceptable? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) Fancy bringing Parliament back to ask a question about sandcastles. That says it all about this crowd opposite—it absolutely says it all! Sandcastles and playing in the sand with buckets and shovels is about all the opposition is capable of. Buckets and shovels in the sand—what a joke! What an absolute joke is the Leader of the Opposition. Here we are back in Parliament, having spent thousands of dollars flying members back from all over the state, and for what? It is to debate an amendment, which reads — A court sentencing an offender to a fixed term can impose a penalty up to the statutory penalty … Congratulations! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the question was quite specifically about the behaviour of a member of Parliament and whether that member of Parliament revealed a personal interest in a matter. I realise that the Premier had this answer prepared before question time, and that he was going to read it out no matter what, but the answer is not relevant to the question that was asked. I ask that the Premier be brought back to the question that was asked. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is a convention of this house that when answering a question from the opposition, the minister will give the answer that the minister wishes to give. It may not be the answer that the opposition wants, but that is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : I am sure that if the Premier has more to say about this matter, he will add to his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I had to be inventive because, after all these weeks, here we go, once again: the opposition is going on about the member for Scarborough. What a farce! The opposition ran two motions on the appointment of Peter Conran. The opposition ran the motion once and did not get anywhere; therefore, it ran it again. Then the opposition ran for a week on the member for Scarborough. And here we are: the opposition brought Parliament back to ask me a question about the member for Scarborough and sandcastles! Is that why we are back here? Are we back to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough? What a farce! Members have flown back to Perth from all around the state to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough. Well done, Leader of the Opposition—he is right on the ball! Did he not notice that there is a bit of trouble going on in this country in the financial and resources sectors? Did he notice that a bit of work is being done to try to get some big resource projects up in this state? Did he not notice that there are a few issues out there? No. He brings Parliament back to ask a question about an issue debated two weeks ago in relation to the member for Scarborough. I have answered that ad nauseam. The minister responsible for fisheries has answered ad nauseam. Let me say this: I have absolute confidence in both the member for Scarborough and the Minister for Fisheries.
(2) What steps has the Premier taken to ascertain whether the member for Scarborough declared her conflict of interest; namely, that as a director and shareholder of SandCastles Pty Ltd, she stood to make some significant financial gain from this decision? (3) Does the Premier think the member’s actions are acceptable? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) Fancy bringing Parliament back to ask a question about sandcastles. That says it all about this crowd opposite—it absolutely says it all! Sandcastles and playing in the sand with buckets and shovels is about all the opposition is capable of. Buckets and shovels in the sand—what a joke! What an absolute joke is the Leader of the Opposition. Here we are back in Parliament, having spent thousands of dollars flying members back from all over the state, and for what? It is to debate an amendment, which reads — A court sentencing an offender to a fixed term can impose a penalty up to the statutory penalty … Congratulations! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the question was quite specifically about the behaviour of a member of Parliament and whether that member of Parliament revealed a personal interest in a matter. I realise that the Premier had this answer prepared before question time, and that he was going to read it out no matter what, but the answer is not relevant to the question that was asked. I ask that the Premier be brought back to the question that was asked. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is a convention of this house that when answering a question from the opposition, the minister will give the answer that the minister wishes to give. It may not be the answer that the opposition wants, but that is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : I am sure that if the Premier has more to say about this matter, he will add to his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I had to be inventive because, after all these weeks, here we go, once again: the opposition is going on about the member for Scarborough. What a farce! The opposition ran two motions on the appointment of Peter Conran. The opposition ran the motion once and did not get anywhere; therefore, it ran it again. Then the opposition ran for a week on the member for Scarborough. And here we are: the opposition brought Parliament back to ask me a question about the member for Scarborough and sandcastles! Is that why we are back here? Are we back to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough? What a farce! Members have flown back to Perth from all around the state to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough. Well done, Leader of the Opposition—he is right on the ball! Did he not notice that there is a bit of trouble going on in this country in the financial and resources sectors? Did he notice that a bit of work is being done to try to get some big resource projects up in this state? Did he not notice that there are a few issues out there? No. He brings Parliament back to ask a question about an issue debated two weeks ago in relation to the member for Scarborough. I have answered that ad nauseam. The minister responsible for fisheries has answered ad nauseam. Let me say this: I have absolute confidence in both the member for Scarborough and the Minister for Fisheries.
(3) Does the Premier think the member’s actions are acceptable? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) Fancy bringing Parliament back to ask a question about sandcastles. That says it all about this crowd opposite—it absolutely says it all! Sandcastles and playing in the sand with buckets and shovels is about all the opposition is capable of. Buckets and shovels in the sand—what a joke! What an absolute joke is the Leader of the Opposition. Here we are back in Parliament, having spent thousands of dollars flying members back from all over the state, and for what? It is to debate an amendment, which reads — A court sentencing an offender to a fixed term can impose a penalty up to the statutory penalty … Congratulations! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the question was quite specifically about the behaviour of a member of Parliament and whether that member of Parliament revealed a personal interest in a matter. I realise that the Premier had this answer prepared before question time, and that he was going to read it out no matter what, but the answer is not relevant to the question that was asked. I ask that the Premier be brought back to the question that was asked. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is a convention of this house that when answering a question from the opposition, the minister will give the answer that the minister wishes to give. It may not be the answer that the opposition wants, but that is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : I am sure that if the Premier has more to say about this matter, he will add to his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I had to be inventive because, after all these weeks, here we go, once again: the opposition is going on about the member for Scarborough. What a farce! The opposition ran two motions on the appointment of Peter Conran. The opposition ran the motion once and did not get anywhere; therefore, it ran it again. Then the opposition ran for a week on the member for Scarborough. And here we are: the opposition brought Parliament back to ask me a question about the member for Scarborough and sandcastles! Is that why we are back here? Are we back to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough? What a farce! Members have flown back to Perth from all around the state to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough. Well done, Leader of the Opposition—he is right on the ball! Did he not notice that there is a bit of trouble going on in this country in the financial and resources sectors? Did he notice that a bit of work is being done to try to get some big resource projects up in this state? Did he not notice that there are a few issues out there? No. He brings Parliament back to ask a question about an issue debated two weeks ago in relation to the member for Scarborough. I have answered that ad nauseam. The minister responsible for fisheries has answered ad nauseam. Let me say this: I have absolute confidence in both the member for Scarborough and the Minister for Fisheries.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) Fancy bringing Parliament back to ask a question about sandcastles. That says it all about this crowd opposite—it absolutely says it all! Sandcastles and playing in the sand with buckets and shovels is about all the opposition is capable of. Buckets and shovels in the sand—what a joke! What an absolute joke is the Leader of the Opposition. Here we are back in Parliament, having spent thousands of dollars flying members back from all over the state, and for what? It is to debate an amendment, which reads — A court sentencing an offender to a fixed term can impose a penalty up to the statutory penalty … Congratulations! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the question was quite specifically about the behaviour of a member of Parliament and whether that member of Parliament revealed a personal interest in a matter. I realise that the Premier had this answer prepared before question time, and that he was going to read it out no matter what, but the answer is not relevant to the question that was asked. I ask that the Premier be brought back to the question that was asked. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is a convention of this house that when answering a question from the opposition, the minister will give the answer that the minister wishes to give. It may not be the answer that the opposition wants, but that is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : I am sure that if the Premier has more to say about this matter, he will add to his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I had to be inventive because, after all these weeks, here we go, once again: the opposition is going on about the member for Scarborough. What a farce! The opposition ran two motions on the appointment of Peter Conran. The opposition ran the motion once and did not get anywhere; therefore, it ran it again. Then the opposition ran for a week on the member for Scarborough. And here we are: the opposition brought Parliament back to ask me a question about the member for Scarborough and sandcastles! Is that why we are back here? Are we back to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough? What a farce! Members have flown back to Perth from all around the state to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough. Well done, Leader of the Opposition—he is right on the ball! Did he not notice that there is a bit of trouble going on in this country in the financial and resources sectors? Did he notice that a bit of work is being done to try to get some big resource projects up in this state? Did he not notice that there are a few issues out there? No. He brings Parliament back to ask a question about an issue debated two weeks ago in relation to the member for Scarborough. I have answered that ad nauseam. The minister responsible for fisheries has answered ad nauseam. Let me say this: I have absolute confidence in both the member for Scarborough and the Minister for Fisheries.
(1)-(3) Fancy bringing Parliament back to ask a question about sandcastles. That says it all about this crowd opposite—it absolutely says it all! Sandcastles and playing in the sand with buckets and shovels is about all the opposition is capable of. Buckets and shovels in the sand—what a joke! What an absolute joke is the Leader of the Opposition. Here we are back in Parliament, having spent thousands of dollars flying members back from all over the state, and for what? It is to debate an amendment, which reads — A court sentencing an offender to a fixed term can impose a penalty up to the statutory penalty … Congratulations! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the question was quite specifically about the behaviour of a member of Parliament and whether that member of Parliament revealed a personal interest in a matter. I realise that the Premier had this answer prepared before question time, and that he was going to read it out no matter what, but the answer is not relevant to the question that was asked. I ask that the Premier be brought back to the question that was asked. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is a convention of this house that when answering a question from the opposition, the minister will give the answer that the minister wishes to give. It may not be the answer that the opposition wants, but that is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : I am sure that if the Premier has more to say about this matter, he will add to his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I had to be inventive because, after all these weeks, here we go, once again: the opposition is going on about the member for Scarborough. What a farce! The opposition ran two motions on the appointment of Peter Conran. The opposition ran the motion once and did not get anywhere; therefore, it ran it again. Then the opposition ran for a week on the member for Scarborough. And here we are: the opposition brought Parliament back to ask me a question about the member for Scarborough and sandcastles! Is that why we are back here? Are we back to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough? What a farce! Members have flown back to Perth from all around the state to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough. Well done, Leader of the Opposition—he is right on the ball! Did he not notice that there is a bit of trouble going on in this country in the financial and resources sectors? Did he notice that a bit of work is being done to try to get some big resource projects up in this state? Did he not notice that there are a few issues out there? No. He brings Parliament back to ask a question about an issue debated two weeks ago in relation to the member for Scarborough. I have answered that ad nauseam. The minister responsible for fisheries has answered ad nauseam. Let me say this: I have absolute confidence in both the member for Scarborough and the Minister for Fisheries.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is a convention of this house that when answering a question from the opposition, the minister will give the answer that the minister wishes to give. It may not be the answer that the opposition wants, but that is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : I am sure that if the Premier has more to say about this matter, he will add to his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I had to be inventive because, after all these weeks, here we go, once again: the opposition is going on about the member for Scarborough. What a farce! The opposition ran two motions on the appointment of Peter Conran. The opposition ran the motion once and did not get anywhere; therefore, it ran it again. Then the opposition ran for a week on the member for Scarborough. And here we are: the opposition brought Parliament back to ask me a question about the member for Scarborough and sandcastles! Is that why we are back here? Are we back to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough? What a farce! Members have flown back to Perth from all around the state to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough. Well done, Leader of the Opposition—he is right on the ball! Did he not notice that there is a bit of trouble going on in this country in the financial and resources sectors? Did he notice that a bit of work is being done to try to get some big resource projects up in this state? Did he not notice that there are a few issues out there? No. He brings Parliament back to ask a question about an issue debated two weeks ago in relation to the member for Scarborough. I have answered that ad nauseam. The minister responsible for fisheries has answered ad nauseam. Let me say this: I have absolute confidence in both the member for Scarborough and the Minister for Fisheries.
The SPEAKER : I am sure that if the Premier has more to say about this matter, he will add to his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I had to be inventive because, after all these weeks, here we go, once again: the opposition is going on about the member for Scarborough. What a farce! The opposition ran two motions on the appointment of Peter Conran. The opposition ran the motion once and did not get anywhere; therefore, it ran it again. Then the opposition ran for a week on the member for Scarborough. And here we are: the opposition brought Parliament back to ask me a question about the member for Scarborough and sandcastles! Is that why we are back here? Are we back to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough? What a farce! Members have flown back to Perth from all around the state to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough. Well done, Leader of the Opposition—he is right on the ball! Did he not notice that there is a bit of trouble going on in this country in the financial and resources sectors? Did he notice that a bit of work is being done to try to get some big resource projects up in this state? Did he not notice that there are a few issues out there? No. He brings Parliament back to ask a question about an issue debated two weeks ago in relation to the member for Scarborough. I have answered that ad nauseam. The minister responsible for fisheries has answered ad nauseam. Let me say this: I have absolute confidence in both the member for Scarborough and the Minister for Fisheries.
(1) Will the Premier confirm for this house that the member for Scarborough personally lobbied the Minister for Fisheries before the minister made his controversial decision to reverse a proposed ban on Western Australia’s vulnerable fish species? (2) What steps has the Premier taken to ascertain whether the member for Scarborough declared her conflict of interest; namely, that as a director and shareholder of SandCastles Pty Ltd, she stood to make some significant financial gain from this decision? (3) Does the Premier think the member’s actions are acceptable? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) Fancy bringing Parliament back to ask a question about sandcastles. That says it all about this crowd opposite—it absolutely says it all! Sandcastles and playing in the sand with buckets and shovels is about all the opposition is capable of. Buckets and shovels in the sand—what a joke! What an absolute joke is the Leader of the Opposition. Here we are back in Parliament, having spent thousands of dollars flying members back from all over the state, and for what? It is to debate an amendment, which reads — A court sentencing an offender to a fixed term can impose a penalty up to the statutory penalty … Congratulations! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the question was quite specifically about the behaviour of a member of Parliament and whether that member of Parliament revealed a personal interest in a matter. I realise that the Premier had this answer prepared before question time, and that he was going to read it out no matter what, but the answer is not relevant to the question that was asked. I ask that the Premier be brought back to the question that was asked. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is a convention of this house that when answering a question from the opposition, the minister will give the answer that the minister wishes to give. It may not be the answer that the opposition wants, but that is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : I am sure that if the Premier has more to say about this matter, he will add to his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I had to be inventive because, after all these weeks, here we go, once again: the opposition is going on about the member for Scarborough. What a farce! The opposition ran two motions on the appointment of Peter Conran. The opposition ran the motion once and did not get anywhere; therefore, it ran it again. Then the opposition ran for a week on the member for Scarborough. And here we are: the opposition brought Parliament back to ask me a question about the member for Scarborough and sandcastles! Is that why we are back here? Are we back to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough? What a farce! Members have flown back to Perth from all around the state to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough. Well done, Leader of the Opposition—he is right on the ball! Did he not notice that there is a bit of trouble going on in this country in the financial and resources sectors? Did he notice that a bit of work is being done to try to get some big resource projects up in this state? Did he not notice that there are a few issues out there? No. He brings Parliament back to ask a question about an issue debated two weeks ago in relation to the member for Scarborough. I have answered that ad nauseam. The minister responsible for fisheries has answered ad nauseam. Let me say this: I have absolute confidence in both the member for Scarborough and the Minister for Fisheries.
(2) What steps has the Premier taken to ascertain whether the member for Scarborough declared her conflict of interest; namely, that as a director and shareholder of SandCastles Pty Ltd, she stood to make some significant financial gain from this decision? (3) Does the Premier think the member’s actions are acceptable? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) Fancy bringing Parliament back to ask a question about sandcastles. That says it all about this crowd opposite—it absolutely says it all! Sandcastles and playing in the sand with buckets and shovels is about all the opposition is capable of. Buckets and shovels in the sand—what a joke! What an absolute joke is the Leader of the Opposition. Here we are back in Parliament, having spent thousands of dollars flying members back from all over the state, and for what? It is to debate an amendment, which reads — A court sentencing an offender to a fixed term can impose a penalty up to the statutory penalty … Congratulations! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the question was quite specifically about the behaviour of a member of Parliament and whether that member of Parliament revealed a personal interest in a matter. I realise that the Premier had this answer prepared before question time, and that he was going to read it out no matter what, but the answer is not relevant to the question that was asked. I ask that the Premier be brought back to the question that was asked. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is a convention of this house that when answering a question from the opposition, the minister will give the answer that the minister wishes to give. It may not be the answer that the opposition wants, but that is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : I am sure that if the Premier has more to say about this matter, he will add to his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I had to be inventive because, after all these weeks, here we go, once again: the opposition is going on about the member for Scarborough. What a farce! The opposition ran two motions on the appointment of Peter Conran. The opposition ran the motion once and did not get anywhere; therefore, it ran it again. Then the opposition ran for a week on the member for Scarborough. And here we are: the opposition brought Parliament back to ask me a question about the member for Scarborough and sandcastles! Is that why we are back here? Are we back to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough? What a farce! Members have flown back to Perth from all around the state to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough. Well done, Leader of the Opposition—he is right on the ball! Did he not notice that there is a bit of trouble going on in this country in the financial and resources sectors? Did he notice that a bit of work is being done to try to get some big resource projects up in this state? Did he not notice that there are a few issues out there? No. He brings Parliament back to ask a question about an issue debated two weeks ago in relation to the member for Scarborough. I have answered that ad nauseam. The minister responsible for fisheries has answered ad nauseam. Let me say this: I have absolute confidence in both the member for Scarborough and the Minister for Fisheries.
(3) Does the Premier think the member’s actions are acceptable? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) Fancy bringing Parliament back to ask a question about sandcastles. That says it all about this crowd opposite—it absolutely says it all! Sandcastles and playing in the sand with buckets and shovels is about all the opposition is capable of. Buckets and shovels in the sand—what a joke! What an absolute joke is the Leader of the Opposition. Here we are back in Parliament, having spent thousands of dollars flying members back from all over the state, and for what? It is to debate an amendment, which reads — A court sentencing an offender to a fixed term can impose a penalty up to the statutory penalty … Congratulations! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the question was quite specifically about the behaviour of a member of Parliament and whether that member of Parliament revealed a personal interest in a matter. I realise that the Premier had this answer prepared before question time, and that he was going to read it out no matter what, but the answer is not relevant to the question that was asked. I ask that the Premier be brought back to the question that was asked. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is a convention of this house that when answering a question from the opposition, the minister will give the answer that the minister wishes to give. It may not be the answer that the opposition wants, but that is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : I am sure that if the Premier has more to say about this matter, he will add to his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I had to be inventive because, after all these weeks, here we go, once again: the opposition is going on about the member for Scarborough. What a farce! The opposition ran two motions on the appointment of Peter Conran. The opposition ran the motion once and did not get anywhere; therefore, it ran it again. Then the opposition ran for a week on the member for Scarborough. And here we are: the opposition brought Parliament back to ask me a question about the member for Scarborough and sandcastles! Is that why we are back here? Are we back to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough? What a farce! Members have flown back to Perth from all around the state to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough. Well done, Leader of the Opposition—he is right on the ball! Did he not notice that there is a bit of trouble going on in this country in the financial and resources sectors? Did he notice that a bit of work is being done to try to get some big resource projects up in this state? Did he not notice that there are a few issues out there? No. He brings Parliament back to ask a question about an issue debated two weeks ago in relation to the member for Scarborough. I have answered that ad nauseam. The minister responsible for fisheries has answered ad nauseam. Let me say this: I have absolute confidence in both the member for Scarborough and the Minister for Fisheries.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) Fancy bringing Parliament back to ask a question about sandcastles. That says it all about this crowd opposite—it absolutely says it all! Sandcastles and playing in the sand with buckets and shovels is about all the opposition is capable of. Buckets and shovels in the sand—what a joke! What an absolute joke is the Leader of the Opposition. Here we are back in Parliament, having spent thousands of dollars flying members back from all over the state, and for what? It is to debate an amendment, which reads — A court sentencing an offender to a fixed term can impose a penalty up to the statutory penalty … Congratulations! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the question was quite specifically about the behaviour of a member of Parliament and whether that member of Parliament revealed a personal interest in a matter. I realise that the Premier had this answer prepared before question time, and that he was going to read it out no matter what, but the answer is not relevant to the question that was asked. I ask that the Premier be brought back to the question that was asked. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is a convention of this house that when answering a question from the opposition, the minister will give the answer that the minister wishes to give. It may not be the answer that the opposition wants, but that is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : I am sure that if the Premier has more to say about this matter, he will add to his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I had to be inventive because, after all these weeks, here we go, once again: the opposition is going on about the member for Scarborough. What a farce! The opposition ran two motions on the appointment of Peter Conran. The opposition ran the motion once and did not get anywhere; therefore, it ran it again. Then the opposition ran for a week on the member for Scarborough. And here we are: the opposition brought Parliament back to ask me a question about the member for Scarborough and sandcastles! Is that why we are back here? Are we back to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough? What a farce! Members have flown back to Perth from all around the state to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough. Well done, Leader of the Opposition—he is right on the ball! Did he not notice that there is a bit of trouble going on in this country in the financial and resources sectors? Did he notice that a bit of work is being done to try to get some big resource projects up in this state? Did he not notice that there are a few issues out there? No. He brings Parliament back to ask a question about an issue debated two weeks ago in relation to the member for Scarborough. I have answered that ad nauseam. The minister responsible for fisheries has answered ad nauseam. Let me say this: I have absolute confidence in both the member for Scarborough and the Minister for Fisheries.
(1)-(3) Fancy bringing Parliament back to ask a question about sandcastles. That says it all about this crowd opposite—it absolutely says it all! Sandcastles and playing in the sand with buckets and shovels is about all the opposition is capable of. Buckets and shovels in the sand—what a joke! What an absolute joke is the Leader of the Opposition. Here we are back in Parliament, having spent thousands of dollars flying members back from all over the state, and for what? It is to debate an amendment, which reads — A court sentencing an offender to a fixed term can impose a penalty up to the statutory penalty … Congratulations! Point of Order Mr M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, the question was quite specifically about the behaviour of a member of Parliament and whether that member of Parliament revealed a personal interest in a matter. I realise that the Premier had this answer prepared before question time, and that he was going to read it out no matter what, but the answer is not relevant to the question that was asked. I ask that the Premier be brought back to the question that was asked. Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is a convention of this house that when answering a question from the opposition, the minister will give the answer that the minister wishes to give. It may not be the answer that the opposition wants, but that is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : I am sure that if the Premier has more to say about this matter, he will add to his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I had to be inventive because, after all these weeks, here we go, once again: the opposition is going on about the member for Scarborough. What a farce! The opposition ran two motions on the appointment of Peter Conran. The opposition ran the motion once and did not get anywhere; therefore, it ran it again. Then the opposition ran for a week on the member for Scarborough. And here we are: the opposition brought Parliament back to ask me a question about the member for Scarborough and sandcastles! Is that why we are back here? Are we back to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough? What a farce! Members have flown back to Perth from all around the state to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough. Well done, Leader of the Opposition—he is right on the ball! Did he not notice that there is a bit of trouble going on in this country in the financial and resources sectors? Did he notice that a bit of work is being done to try to get some big resource projects up in this state? Did he not notice that there are a few issues out there? No. He brings Parliament back to ask a question about an issue debated two weeks ago in relation to the member for Scarborough. I have answered that ad nauseam. The minister responsible for fisheries has answered ad nauseam. Let me say this: I have absolute confidence in both the member for Scarborough and the Minister for Fisheries.
Mr R.F. JOHNSON : It is a convention of this house that when answering a question from the opposition, the minister will give the answer that the minister wishes to give. It may not be the answer that the opposition wants, but that is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : I am sure that if the Premier has more to say about this matter, he will add to his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I had to be inventive because, after all these weeks, here we go, once again: the opposition is going on about the member for Scarborough. What a farce! The opposition ran two motions on the appointment of Peter Conran. The opposition ran the motion once and did not get anywhere; therefore, it ran it again. Then the opposition ran for a week on the member for Scarborough. And here we are: the opposition brought Parliament back to ask me a question about the member for Scarborough and sandcastles! Is that why we are back here? Are we back to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough? What a farce! Members have flown back to Perth from all around the state to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough. Well done, Leader of the Opposition—he is right on the ball! Did he not notice that there is a bit of trouble going on in this country in the financial and resources sectors? Did he notice that a bit of work is being done to try to get some big resource projects up in this state? Did he not notice that there are a few issues out there? No. He brings Parliament back to ask a question about an issue debated two weeks ago in relation to the member for Scarborough. I have answered that ad nauseam. The minister responsible for fisheries has answered ad nauseam. Let me say this: I have absolute confidence in both the member for Scarborough and the Minister for Fisheries.
The SPEAKER : I am sure that if the Premier has more to say about this matter, he will add to his answer. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I had to be inventive because, after all these weeks, here we go, once again: the opposition is going on about the member for Scarborough. What a farce! The opposition ran two motions on the appointment of Peter Conran. The opposition ran the motion once and did not get anywhere; therefore, it ran it again. Then the opposition ran for a week on the member for Scarborough. And here we are: the opposition brought Parliament back to ask me a question about the member for Scarborough and sandcastles! Is that why we are back here? Are we back to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough? What a farce! Members have flown back to Perth from all around the state to talk about sandcastles and the member for Scarborough. Well done, Leader of the Opposition—he is right on the ball! Did he not notice that there is a bit of trouble going on in this country in the financial and resources sectors? Did he notice that a bit of work is being done to try to get some big resource projects up in this state? Did he not notice that there are a few issues out there? No. He brings Parliament back to ask a question about an issue debated two weeks ago in relation to the member for Scarborough. I have answered that ad nauseam. The minister responsible for fisheries has answered ad nauseam. Let me say this: I have absolute confidence in both the member for Scarborough and the Minister for Fisheries.
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.