❓ Mr. Ripper questions the Premier about a $15,000 payment to Ms. Bell for two weeks of work, seeking documentation. The Premier deflects, questioning the use of taxpayer funds by another member and promising written detail.
AnsweredQoN 70Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
TIRZAH BELL — GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT
I have a supplementary question. Given that Ms Bell was paid $15 000 for two weeks’ work, will the Premier table any advice that was the foundation for the decision made in this case? Mr C.J. BARNETT
I have a supplementary question. Given that Ms Bell was paid $15 000 for two weeks’ work, will the Premier table any advice that was the foundation for the decision made in this case? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
I am not sure that it is actually correct that it was for two weeks’ work. I think there was an extended period, but it was — Mr M. McGowan : Your answer said two weeks’ work. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes; it was formally determined that she spent two weeks in the minister’s office, but there was a period of work that extended beyond that. So, within the public sector, when it was looked at as a term-of-government employee, it was considered that $15 000 was the appropriate payout for that position. Yes, I agreed to that, but I did not determine that amount. Whether it was handled by—I would have to correct this—Malcolm Wauchope who was about to be the Public Sector Commissioner or Peter Conran as the new head of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, I would have to check my facts on that. I am sure there was some discussion with my office; I do not deny that — Mr E.S. Ripper : Can we have the documentation? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will provide the Leader of the Opposition with written detail of what happened and then he can take it from there. It is interesting, is it not? Here we are talking about a matter of propriety—is that the point the Leader of the Opposition is making? Mr E.S. Ripper : We are talking about the use of taxpayers’ money. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I am not sure that it is actually correct that it was for two weeks’ work. I think there was an extended period, but it was — Mr M. McGowan : Your answer said two weeks’ work. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes; it was formally determined that she spent two weeks in the minister’s office, but there was a period of work that extended beyond that. So, within the public sector, when it was looked at as a term-of-government employee, it was considered that $15 000 was the appropriate payout for that position. Yes, I agreed to that, but I did not determine that amount. Whether it was handled by—I would have to correct this—Malcolm Wauchope who was about to be the Public Sector Commissioner or Peter Conran as the new head of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, I would have to check my facts on that. I am sure there was some discussion with my office; I do not deny that — Mr E.S. Ripper : Can we have the documentation? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will provide the Leader of the Opposition with written detail of what happened and then he can take it from there. It is interesting, is it not? Here we are talking about a matter of propriety—is that the point the Leader of the Opposition is making? Mr E.S. Ripper : We are talking about the use of taxpayers’ money. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
I am not sure that it is actually correct that it was for two weeks’ work. I think there was an extended period, but it was — Mr M. McGowan : Your answer said two weeks’ work. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes; it was formally determined that she spent two weeks in the minister’s office, but there was a period of work that extended beyond that. So, within the public sector, when it was looked at as a term-of-government employee, it was considered that $15 000 was the appropriate payout for that position. Yes, I agreed to that, but I did not determine that amount. Whether it was handled by—I would have to correct this—Malcolm Wauchope who was about to be the Public Sector Commissioner or Peter Conran as the new head of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, I would have to check my facts on that. I am sure there was some discussion with my office; I do not deny that — Mr E.S. Ripper : Can we have the documentation? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will provide the Leader of the Opposition with written detail of what happened and then he can take it from there. It is interesting, is it not? Here we are talking about a matter of propriety—is that the point the Leader of the Opposition is making? Mr E.S. Ripper : We are talking about the use of taxpayers’ money. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr M. McGowan : Your answer said two weeks’ work. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes; it was formally determined that she spent two weeks in the minister’s office, but there was a period of work that extended beyond that. So, within the public sector, when it was looked at as a term-of-government employee, it was considered that $15 000 was the appropriate payout for that position. Yes, I agreed to that, but I did not determine that amount. Whether it was handled by—I would have to correct this—Malcolm Wauchope who was about to be the Public Sector Commissioner or Peter Conran as the new head of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, I would have to check my facts on that. I am sure there was some discussion with my office; I do not deny that — Mr E.S. Ripper : Can we have the documentation? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will provide the Leader of the Opposition with written detail of what happened and then he can take it from there. It is interesting, is it not? Here we are talking about a matter of propriety—is that the point the Leader of the Opposition is making? Mr E.S. Ripper : We are talking about the use of taxpayers’ money. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes; it was formally determined that she spent two weeks in the minister’s office, but there was a period of work that extended beyond that. So, within the public sector, when it was looked at as a term-of-government employee, it was considered that $15 000 was the appropriate payout for that position. Yes, I agreed to that, but I did not determine that amount. Whether it was handled by—I would have to correct this—Malcolm Wauchope who was about to be the Public Sector Commissioner or Peter Conran as the new head of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, I would have to check my facts on that. I am sure there was some discussion with my office; I do not deny that — Mr E.S. Ripper : Can we have the documentation? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will provide the Leader of the Opposition with written detail of what happened and then he can take it from there. It is interesting, is it not? Here we are talking about a matter of propriety—is that the point the Leader of the Opposition is making? Mr E.S. Ripper : We are talking about the use of taxpayers’ money. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Can we have the documentation? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will provide the Leader of the Opposition with written detail of what happened and then he can take it from there. It is interesting, is it not? Here we are talking about a matter of propriety—is that the point the Leader of the Opposition is making? Mr E.S. Ripper : We are talking about the use of taxpayers’ money. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will provide the Leader of the Opposition with written detail of what happened and then he can take it from there. It is interesting, is it not? Here we are talking about a matter of propriety—is that the point the Leader of the Opposition is making? Mr E.S. Ripper : We are talking about the use of taxpayers’ money. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
It is interesting, is it not? Here we are talking about a matter of propriety—is that the point the Leader of the Opposition is making? Mr E.S. Ripper : We are talking about the use of taxpayers’ money. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr E.S. Ripper : We are talking about the use of taxpayers’ money. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: I am not sure that it is actually correct that it was for two weeks’ work. I think there was an extended period, but it was — Mr M. McGowan : Your answer said two weeks’ work. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes; it was formally determined that she spent two weeks in the minister’s office, but there was a period of work that extended beyond that. So, within the public sector, when it was looked at as a term-of-government employee, it was considered that $15 000 was the appropriate payout for that position. Yes, I agreed to that, but I did not determine that amount. Whether it was handled by—I would have to correct this—Malcolm Wauchope who was about to be the Public Sector Commissioner or Peter Conran as the new head of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, I would have to check my facts on that. I am sure there was some discussion with my office; I do not deny that — Mr E.S. Ripper : Can we have the documentation? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will provide the Leader of the Opposition with written detail of what happened and then he can take it from there. It is interesting, is it not? Here we are talking about a matter of propriety—is that the point the Leader of the Opposition is making? Mr E.S. Ripper : We are talking about the use of taxpayers’ money. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
I am not sure that it is actually correct that it was for two weeks’ work. I think there was an extended period, but it was — Mr M. McGowan : Your answer said two weeks’ work. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes; it was formally determined that she spent two weeks in the minister’s office, but there was a period of work that extended beyond that. So, within the public sector, when it was looked at as a term-of-government employee, it was considered that $15 000 was the appropriate payout for that position. Yes, I agreed to that, but I did not determine that amount. Whether it was handled by—I would have to correct this—Malcolm Wauchope who was about to be the Public Sector Commissioner or Peter Conran as the new head of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, I would have to check my facts on that. I am sure there was some discussion with my office; I do not deny that — Mr E.S. Ripper : Can we have the documentation? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will provide the Leader of the Opposition with written detail of what happened and then he can take it from there. It is interesting, is it not? Here we are talking about a matter of propriety—is that the point the Leader of the Opposition is making? Mr E.S. Ripper : We are talking about the use of taxpayers’ money. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr M. McGowan : Your answer said two weeks’ work. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes; it was formally determined that she spent two weeks in the minister’s office, but there was a period of work that extended beyond that. So, within the public sector, when it was looked at as a term-of-government employee, it was considered that $15 000 was the appropriate payout for that position. Yes, I agreed to that, but I did not determine that amount. Whether it was handled by—I would have to correct this—Malcolm Wauchope who was about to be the Public Sector Commissioner or Peter Conran as the new head of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, I would have to check my facts on that. I am sure there was some discussion with my office; I do not deny that — Mr E.S. Ripper : Can we have the documentation? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will provide the Leader of the Opposition with written detail of what happened and then he can take it from there. It is interesting, is it not? Here we are talking about a matter of propriety—is that the point the Leader of the Opposition is making? Mr E.S. Ripper : We are talking about the use of taxpayers’ money. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Yes; it was formally determined that she spent two weeks in the minister’s office, but there was a period of work that extended beyond that. So, within the public sector, when it was looked at as a term-of-government employee, it was considered that $15 000 was the appropriate payout for that position. Yes, I agreed to that, but I did not determine that amount. Whether it was handled by—I would have to correct this—Malcolm Wauchope who was about to be the Public Sector Commissioner or Peter Conran as the new head of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, I would have to check my facts on that. I am sure there was some discussion with my office; I do not deny that — Mr E.S. Ripper : Can we have the documentation? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will provide the Leader of the Opposition with written detail of what happened and then he can take it from there. It is interesting, is it not? Here we are talking about a matter of propriety—is that the point the Leader of the Opposition is making? Mr E.S. Ripper : We are talking about the use of taxpayers’ money. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr E.S. Ripper : Can we have the documentation? Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will provide the Leader of the Opposition with written detail of what happened and then he can take it from there. It is interesting, is it not? Here we are talking about a matter of propriety—is that the point the Leader of the Opposition is making? Mr E.S. Ripper : We are talking about the use of taxpayers’ money. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I will provide the Leader of the Opposition with written detail of what happened and then he can take it from there. It is interesting, is it not? Here we are talking about a matter of propriety—is that the point the Leader of the Opposition is making? Mr E.S. Ripper : We are talking about the use of taxpayers’ money. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
It is interesting, is it not? Here we are talking about a matter of propriety—is that the point the Leader of the Opposition is making? Mr E.S. Ripper : We are talking about the use of taxpayers’ money. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr E.S. Ripper : We are talking about the use of taxpayers’ money. Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : The use of taxpayers’ money—what an interesting point to raise because I just noticed that the member for Armadale is absent. Look at the gap on the other side of the chamber. I can hear nothing, and I was disturbed to receive a message that she was — Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr T.G. Stephens : You complain when she is here and you complain when she is not here! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I do complain when she is here because she should not be here; she should have resigned as the member for Armadale as an endorsed Labor candidate for the seat of Canning. I was disturbed to hear this morning that she was sighted not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a luncheon for the Peel Thunder. The member for Mandurah and the vice-patron of the club were not there. Indeed, what would the member for Armadale have been doing, absent from Parliament—her duties—not in Armadale but in Mandurah at a football luncheon? We are happy to talk about the use of taxpayers’ money. I invite the member for Armadale, if and when she arrives in the chamber, to explain to us how a state taxpayer–funded vehicle and resources were being well used by her attending a football function in Mandurah—nowhere near the seat of Armadale. As my colleague, great star as he was for the Perth Football Club, can testify, Armadale is actually in the football area of the Perth Football Club. If the member for Armadale had been at a Perth Football Club function, I could accept that, but she was at Mandurah. I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
I take the Leader of the Opposition’s point: we must carefully watch the use of taxpayers’ money.
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.