❓ Mr. Redman questions the Premier about the Minister for Regional Development's alleged failure to disclose cash payments received from Energy Made Clean. The Premier defends the Minister, questioning the relevance and basis of the allegations.
AnsweredQoN 268Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
MINISTER FOR REGIONAL
DEVELOPMENT — ENERGY MADE CLEAN
268. Mr D.T. REDMAN to the Premier:
I refer to the Minister for Regional
Development's failure to disclose cash payments she received while
employed as a business development manager for Energy Made Clean.
(1) Has the
Premier spoken to the minister about this matter?
(2) If he has,
what was the minister's justification for not publicly disclosing the
payments?
DEVELOPMENT — ENERGY MADE CLEAN
268. Mr D.T. REDMAN to the Premier:
I refer to the Minister for Regional
Development's failure to disclose cash payments she received while
employed as a business development manager for Energy Made Clean.
(1) Has the
Premier spoken to the minister about this matter?
(2) If he has,
what was the minister's justification for not publicly disclosing the
payments?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) I speak to the
Minister for Regional Development on virtually a daily basis. She is a proactive,
extremely hardworking person. I must say that the feedback I get from people
across Australia is very positive about the role she performs as the Minister
for Regional Development. She is a can-do person in straitened financial times.
The member for Warren–Blackwood's argument seems to be that she
did not disclose that she received cash payments for working for a company
eight years ago. She was asked a question in the upper house about whether she
held a financial position—I think that is what the phrase was; I will
probably find it in the member's supplementary question—or something
of that nature. She answered honestly. She said that part remuneration was some
shares she received, which is an honest answer. I do not understand the premise
of the member's question. It appears to be that eight years ago the
minister held a part-time position in a company that was then acquired by
another company after she left that role and that seven years later, somehow
she has some conflict of interest over that. She divested herself of the
shares. She left the company eight years ago. Honestly, what is the allegation?
She made no financial benefit out of any of these things. The tender process
for Carnegie—a different company—was run independently of her.
It is a bizarre world we live in when members opposite are so desperate to stir
up mud and muck that they are willing to go as low as this and pursue a bizarre
line of reasoning. Does she own the shares now? No. Did she own shares in
Carnegie? No. Did she own shares in Carnegie when the decision was made? No.
Has she ever owned shares in Carnegie? No. What is the allegation?
Minister for Regional Development on virtually a daily basis. She is a proactive,
extremely hardworking person. I must say that the feedback I get from people
across Australia is very positive about the role she performs as the Minister
for Regional Development. She is a can-do person in straitened financial times.
The member for Warren–Blackwood's argument seems to be that she
did not disclose that she received cash payments for working for a company
eight years ago. She was asked a question in the upper house about whether she
held a financial position—I think that is what the phrase was; I will
probably find it in the member's supplementary question—or something
of that nature. She answered honestly. She said that part remuneration was some
shares she received, which is an honest answer. I do not understand the premise
of the member's question. It appears to be that eight years ago the
minister held a part-time position in a company that was then acquired by
another company after she left that role and that seven years later, somehow
she has some conflict of interest over that. She divested herself of the
shares. She left the company eight years ago. Honestly, what is the allegation?
She made no financial benefit out of any of these things. The tender process
for Carnegie—a different company—was run independently of her.
It is a bizarre world we live in when members opposite are so desperate to stir
up mud and muck that they are willing to go as low as this and pursue a bizarre
line of reasoning. Does she own the shares now? No. Did she own shares in
Carnegie? No. Did she own shares in Carnegie when the decision was made? No.
Has she ever owned shares in Carnegie? No. What is the allegation?
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.