❓ Barnett questions Ripper about incorrect meeting dates provided in a previous answer regarding Burke and Grill. Ripper deflects by raising O'Connor's lobbying of the opposition.
AnsweredQoN 590Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Treasurer to a question without notice in the upper House dated 19 December 2002, in which he confirmed that his chief of staff met with Brian Burke and Julian Grill on two occasions - Dr G.I. Gallop: It used to be reds under the bed! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I will start again, Mr Speaker. I refer the Treasurer - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I refer the Treasurer to a question without notice in the upper House dated 19 December 2002, in which he confirmed that his chief of staff met with Brian Burke and Julian Grill on two occasions to discuss payroll tax amnesty, those dates being 23 October 2002 and 8 November 2002. (1) What new information led the Treasurer, through his representative in the upper House, to make a personal explanation last week and to change both those dates some three months after his original answer was given? (2) How did the Treasurer become aware that the original meeting dates he provided were incorrect? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
Dr G.I. Gallop: It used to be reds under the bed! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I will start again, Mr Speaker. I refer the Treasurer - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I refer the Treasurer to a question without notice in the upper House dated 19 December 2002, in which he confirmed that his chief of staff met with Brian Burke and Julian Grill on two occasions to discuss payroll tax amnesty, those dates being 23 October 2002 and 8 November 2002. (1) What new information led the Treasurer, through his representative in the upper House, to make a personal explanation last week and to change both those dates some three months after his original answer was given? (2) How did the Treasurer become aware that the original meeting dates he provided were incorrect? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I will start again, Mr Speaker. I refer the Treasurer - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I refer the Treasurer to a question without notice in the upper House dated 19 December 2002, in which he confirmed that his chief of staff met with Brian Burke and Julian Grill on two occasions to discuss payroll tax amnesty, those dates being 23 October 2002 and 8 November 2002. (1) What new information led the Treasurer, through his representative in the upper House, to make a personal explanation last week and to change both those dates some three months after his original answer was given? (2) How did the Treasurer become aware that the original meeting dates he provided were incorrect? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I refer the Treasurer to a question without notice in the upper House dated 19 December 2002, in which he confirmed that his chief of staff met with Brian Burke and Julian Grill on two occasions to discuss payroll tax amnesty, those dates being 23 October 2002 and 8 November 2002. (1) What new information led the Treasurer, through his representative in the upper House, to make a personal explanation last week and to change both those dates some three months after his original answer was given? (2) How did the Treasurer become aware that the original meeting dates he provided were incorrect? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I refer the Treasurer to a question without notice in the upper House dated 19 December 2002, in which he confirmed that his chief of staff met with Brian Burke and Julian Grill on two occasions to discuss payroll tax amnesty, those dates being 23 October 2002 and 8 November 2002. (1) What new information led the Treasurer, through his representative in the upper House, to make a personal explanation last week and to change both those dates some three months after his original answer was given? (2) How did the Treasurer become aware that the original meeting dates he provided were incorrect? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I refer the Treasurer to a question without notice in the upper House dated 19 December 2002, in which he confirmed that his chief of staff met with Brian Burke and Julian Grill on two occasions to discuss payroll tax amnesty, those dates being 23 October 2002 and 8 November 2002. (1) What new information led the Treasurer, through his representative in the upper House, to make a personal explanation last week and to change both those dates some three months after his original answer was given? (2) How did the Treasurer become aware that the original meeting dates he provided were incorrect? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
(1) What new information led the Treasurer, through his representative in the upper House, to make a personal explanation last week and to change both those dates some three months after his original answer was given? (2) How did the Treasurer become aware that the original meeting dates he provided were incorrect? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
(2) How did the Treasurer become aware that the original meeting dates he provided were incorrect? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
(1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
I have forgotten the second part of the question.
Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
Dr G.I. Gallop: It used to be reds under the bed! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I will start again, Mr Speaker. I refer the Treasurer - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I refer the Treasurer to a question without notice in the upper House dated 19 December 2002, in which he confirmed that his chief of staff met with Brian Burke and Julian Grill on two occasions to discuss payroll tax amnesty, those dates being 23 October 2002 and 8 November 2002. (1) What new information led the Treasurer, through his representative in the upper House, to make a personal explanation last week and to change both those dates some three months after his original answer was given? (2) How did the Treasurer become aware that the original meeting dates he provided were incorrect? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I will start again, Mr Speaker. I refer the Treasurer - Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I refer the Treasurer to a question without notice in the upper House dated 19 December 2002, in which he confirmed that his chief of staff met with Brian Burke and Julian Grill on two occasions to discuss payroll tax amnesty, those dates being 23 October 2002 and 8 November 2002. (1) What new information led the Treasurer, through his representative in the upper House, to make a personal explanation last week and to change both those dates some three months after his original answer was given? (2) How did the Treasurer become aware that the original meeting dates he provided were incorrect? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I refer the Treasurer to a question without notice in the upper House dated 19 December 2002, in which he confirmed that his chief of staff met with Brian Burke and Julian Grill on two occasions to discuss payroll tax amnesty, those dates being 23 October 2002 and 8 November 2002. (1) What new information led the Treasurer, through his representative in the upper House, to make a personal explanation last week and to change both those dates some three months after his original answer was given? (2) How did the Treasurer become aware that the original meeting dates he provided were incorrect? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
The SPEAKER: Members! Mr C.J. BARNETT: I refer the Treasurer to a question without notice in the upper House dated 19 December 2002, in which he confirmed that his chief of staff met with Brian Burke and Julian Grill on two occasions to discuss payroll tax amnesty, those dates being 23 October 2002 and 8 November 2002. (1) What new information led the Treasurer, through his representative in the upper House, to make a personal explanation last week and to change both those dates some three months after his original answer was given? (2) How did the Treasurer become aware that the original meeting dates he provided were incorrect? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I refer the Treasurer to a question without notice in the upper House dated 19 December 2002, in which he confirmed that his chief of staff met with Brian Burke and Julian Grill on two occasions to discuss payroll tax amnesty, those dates being 23 October 2002 and 8 November 2002. (1) What new information led the Treasurer, through his representative in the upper House, to make a personal explanation last week and to change both those dates some three months after his original answer was given? (2) How did the Treasurer become aware that the original meeting dates he provided were incorrect? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
(1) What new information led the Treasurer, through his representative in the upper House, to make a personal explanation last week and to change both those dates some three months after his original answer was given? (2) How did the Treasurer become aware that the original meeting dates he provided were incorrect? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
(2) How did the Treasurer become aware that the original meeting dates he provided were incorrect? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: (1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
(1)-(2) Mr Speaker, I have a confession to make to the House. I have spoken with a former Premier on the telephone. I have been lobbied by a former Premier, and that former Premier has a criminal record. However, Mr Speaker, he is a member - or was - of the Liberal Party. I want to know whether that former Premier, Ray O’Connor, is allowed to meet with members of the Opposition, whether the Leader of the Opposition meets with him and whether the Leader of the Opposition regards it as unsatisfactory that I might return a call from Mr Ray O’Connor and listen to Mr Ray O’Connor’s representations on behalf of a person in East Perth. I return to the detail of the Leader of the Opposition’s questions. The matter of the dates was revealed when my staff examined all the documents in my office to determine the exact sequence of events in this matter because, quite frankly, a freedom of information request was submitted and all the documents were collected. When those documents were collected, it was noticed that an answer had been given in the upper House that was apparently misleading. It would appear that the wrong month was inserted for one meeting and the wrong day, by one day, inserted for the other meeting. As is parliamentary convention, as soon as I became aware that a misleading answer had been given to the upper House, I arranged for that matter to be corrected. I have forgotten the second part of the question. Mr C.J. Barnett: I asked when you became aware. Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
I have forgotten the second part of the question.
Dr G.I. Gallop: He has answered that. Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
Mr E.S. RIPPER: I think I have answered it. There was a freedom of information request. All the documents were assembled. When the documents were assembled it was discovered that a misleading answer had been given in the upper House. In accordance with parliamentary convention, I arranged for it to be immediately corrected. I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
I think the Leader of the Opposition is demonstrating some hypocrisy on this matter. I understand that he has met with Mr Grill about this matter, but he has not confirmed it. He has not been accountable about that. Given that he seems so interested in former Labor politicians, I want to know his view of the standard that should be applied to the representations made by a former Liberal Premier with a criminal record.
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.