❓ A parliamentary question regarding the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development's interaction with Hon Paddy Embry during a debate on the Labour Relations Reform Bill 2002, specifically questioning the Minister's motives and actions in potentially influencing the debate and vote.
AnsweredQoN 1352Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM BILL 2002, HON PADDY EMBRY 1352. Hon PETER FOSS to the Minister for Local Government and Regional Development: (1) On what basis was the minister able to say to Hon Paddy Embry last night in this House, when he asked what the vote was, that it did not matter? (2) Was it the intention of the minister when - (a) he commenced his second conversation with Hon Paddy Embry; and (b) told him that the vote did not matter to prevent Hon Paddy Embry from rising to speak or from calling for a vote on the second reading of the Labour Relations Reform Bill 2002? (3) Did the minister do so in order to promote the Government’s business in this Chamber? The PRESIDENT: I do not think that question is in order, as I do not know how it pertains to the ministerial responsibilities of the minister. Hon PETER FOSS: I asked if that conduct was intended to promote the business of the Government in this Chamber. That is the role of the minister. I would like to see if he has done it properly. The PRESIDENT: The minister could address the final part of the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS
AnswerView source ↗
(3) I listened to the question with interest. I have adopted the view in the formulation of the question that the President was about to rule it out of order, particularly in view of the fact that it is not my responsibility to manage the business of the Government in this House. That is the responsibility of the Leader of the House, and I do not accept that it deals with my conduct as a minister. Yesterday, this House discussed the issue of swimming pool regulations until about 9.09 pm. Around that time, I raised the issue of swimming pool regulations with Hon Paddy Embry. If it was good enough for the House to argue over these regulations until 9.09 pm, I am entitled to have a conversation with one of the members for a few minutes afterwards.
LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM BILL 2002, HON PADDY EMBRY
(1) On what basis was the minister able to say to Hon Paddy Embry last night in this House, when he asked what the vote was, that it did not matter? (2) Was it the intention of the minister when - (a) he commenced his second conversation with Hon Paddy Embry; and (b) told him that the vote did not matter to prevent Hon Paddy Embry from rising to speak or from calling for a vote on the second reading of the Labour Relations Reform Bill 2002? (3) Did the minister do so in order to promote the Government’s business in this Chamber? The PRESIDENT: I do not think that question is in order, as I do not know how it pertains to the ministerial responsibilities of the minister. Hon PETER FOSS: I asked if that conduct was intended to promote the business of the Government in this Chamber. That is the role of the minister. I would like to see if he has done it properly. The PRESIDENT: The minister could address the final part of the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (3) I listened to the question with interest. I have adopted the view in the formulation of the question that the President was about to rule it out of order, particularly in view of the fact that it is not my responsibility to manage the business of the Government in this House. That is the responsibility of the Leader of the House, and I do not accept that it deals with my conduct as a minister. Yesterday, this House discussed the issue of swimming pool regulations until about 9.09 pm. Around that time, I raised the issue of swimming pool regulations with Hon Paddy Embry. If it was good enough for the House to argue over these regulations until 9.09 pm, I am entitled to have a conversation with one of the members for a few minutes afterwards.
(2) Was it the intention of the minister when - (a) he commenced his second conversation with Hon Paddy Embry; and (b) told him that the vote did not matter to prevent Hon Paddy Embry from rising to speak or from calling for a vote on the second reading of the Labour Relations Reform Bill 2002? (3) Did the minister do so in order to promote the Government’s business in this Chamber? The PRESIDENT: I do not think that question is in order, as I do not know how it pertains to the ministerial responsibilities of the minister. Hon PETER FOSS: I asked if that conduct was intended to promote the business of the Government in this Chamber. That is the role of the minister. I would like to see if he has done it properly. The PRESIDENT: The minister could address the final part of the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (3) I listened to the question with interest. I have adopted the view in the formulation of the question that the President was about to rule it out of order, particularly in view of the fact that it is not my responsibility to manage the business of the Government in this House. That is the responsibility of the Leader of the House, and I do not accept that it deals with my conduct as a minister. Yesterday, this House discussed the issue of swimming pool regulations until about 9.09 pm. Around that time, I raised the issue of swimming pool regulations with Hon Paddy Embry. If it was good enough for the House to argue over these regulations until 9.09 pm, I am entitled to have a conversation with one of the members for a few minutes afterwards.
(b) told him that the vote did not matter to prevent Hon Paddy Embry from rising to speak or from calling for a vote on the second reading of the Labour Relations Reform Bill 2002?
to prevent Hon Paddy Embry from rising to speak or from calling for a vote on the second reading of the Labour Relations Reform Bill 2002?
The PRESIDENT: I do not think that question is in order, as I do not know how it pertains to the ministerial responsibilities of the minister. Hon PETER FOSS: I asked if that conduct was intended to promote the business of the Government in this Chamber. That is the role of the minister. I would like to see if he has done it properly. The PRESIDENT: The minister could address the final part of the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (3) I listened to the question with interest. I have adopted the view in the formulation of the question that the President was about to rule it out of order, particularly in view of the fact that it is not my responsibility to manage the business of the Government in this House. That is the responsibility of the Leader of the House, and I do not accept that it deals with my conduct as a minister. Yesterday, this House discussed the issue of swimming pool regulations until about 9.09 pm. Around that time, I raised the issue of swimming pool regulations with Hon Paddy Embry. If it was good enough for the House to argue over these regulations until 9.09 pm, I am entitled to have a conversation with one of the members for a few minutes afterwards.
Hon PETER FOSS: I asked if that conduct was intended to promote the business of the Government in this Chamber. That is the role of the minister. I would like to see if he has done it properly. The PRESIDENT: The minister could address the final part of the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (3) I listened to the question with interest. I have adopted the view in the formulation of the question that the President was about to rule it out of order, particularly in view of the fact that it is not my responsibility to manage the business of the Government in this House. That is the responsibility of the Leader of the House, and I do not accept that it deals with my conduct as a minister. Yesterday, this House discussed the issue of swimming pool regulations until about 9.09 pm. Around that time, I raised the issue of swimming pool regulations with Hon Paddy Embry. If it was good enough for the House to argue over these regulations until 9.09 pm, I am entitled to have a conversation with one of the members for a few minutes afterwards.
The PRESIDENT: The minister could address the final part of the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (3) I listened to the question with interest. I have adopted the view in the formulation of the question that the President was about to rule it out of order, particularly in view of the fact that it is not my responsibility to manage the business of the Government in this House. That is the responsibility of the Leader of the House, and I do not accept that it deals with my conduct as a minister. Yesterday, this House discussed the issue of swimming pool regulations until about 9.09 pm. Around that time, I raised the issue of swimming pool regulations with Hon Paddy Embry. If it was good enough for the House to argue over these regulations until 9.09 pm, I am entitled to have a conversation with one of the members for a few minutes afterwards.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (3) I listened to the question with interest. I have adopted the view in the formulation of the question that the President was about to rule it out of order, particularly in view of the fact that it is not my responsibility to manage the business of the Government in this House. That is the responsibility of the Leader of the House, and I do not accept that it deals with my conduct as a minister. Yesterday, this House discussed the issue of swimming pool regulations until about 9.09 pm. Around that time, I raised the issue of swimming pool regulations with Hon Paddy Embry. If it was good enough for the House to argue over these regulations until 9.09 pm, I am entitled to have a conversation with one of the members for a few minutes afterwards.
(3) I listened to the question with interest. I have adopted the view in the formulation of the question that the President was about to rule it out of order, particularly in view of the fact that it is not my responsibility to manage the business of the Government in this House. That is the responsibility of the Leader of the House, and I do not accept that it deals with my conduct as a minister. Yesterday, this House discussed the issue of swimming pool regulations until about 9.09 pm. Around that time, I raised the issue of swimming pool regulations with Hon Paddy Embry. If it was good enough for the House to argue over these regulations until 9.09 pm, I am entitled to have a conversation with one of the members for a few minutes afterwards.
LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM BILL 2002, HON PADDY EMBRY
(1) On what basis was the minister able to say to Hon Paddy Embry last night in this House, when he asked what the vote was, that it did not matter? (2) Was it the intention of the minister when - (a) he commenced his second conversation with Hon Paddy Embry; and (b) told him that the vote did not matter to prevent Hon Paddy Embry from rising to speak or from calling for a vote on the second reading of the Labour Relations Reform Bill 2002? (3) Did the minister do so in order to promote the Government’s business in this Chamber? The PRESIDENT: I do not think that question is in order, as I do not know how it pertains to the ministerial responsibilities of the minister. Hon PETER FOSS: I asked if that conduct was intended to promote the business of the Government in this Chamber. That is the role of the minister. I would like to see if he has done it properly. The PRESIDENT: The minister could address the final part of the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (3) I listened to the question with interest. I have adopted the view in the formulation of the question that the President was about to rule it out of order, particularly in view of the fact that it is not my responsibility to manage the business of the Government in this House. That is the responsibility of the Leader of the House, and I do not accept that it deals with my conduct as a minister. Yesterday, this House discussed the issue of swimming pool regulations until about 9.09 pm. Around that time, I raised the issue of swimming pool regulations with Hon Paddy Embry. If it was good enough for the House to argue over these regulations until 9.09 pm, I am entitled to have a conversation with one of the members for a few minutes afterwards.
(2) Was it the intention of the minister when - (a) he commenced his second conversation with Hon Paddy Embry; and (b) told him that the vote did not matter to prevent Hon Paddy Embry from rising to speak or from calling for a vote on the second reading of the Labour Relations Reform Bill 2002? (3) Did the minister do so in order to promote the Government’s business in this Chamber? The PRESIDENT: I do not think that question is in order, as I do not know how it pertains to the ministerial responsibilities of the minister. Hon PETER FOSS: I asked if that conduct was intended to promote the business of the Government in this Chamber. That is the role of the minister. I would like to see if he has done it properly. The PRESIDENT: The minister could address the final part of the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (3) I listened to the question with interest. I have adopted the view in the formulation of the question that the President was about to rule it out of order, particularly in view of the fact that it is not my responsibility to manage the business of the Government in this House. That is the responsibility of the Leader of the House, and I do not accept that it deals with my conduct as a minister. Yesterday, this House discussed the issue of swimming pool regulations until about 9.09 pm. Around that time, I raised the issue of swimming pool regulations with Hon Paddy Embry. If it was good enough for the House to argue over these regulations until 9.09 pm, I am entitled to have a conversation with one of the members for a few minutes afterwards.
(b) told him that the vote did not matter to prevent Hon Paddy Embry from rising to speak or from calling for a vote on the second reading of the Labour Relations Reform Bill 2002?
to prevent Hon Paddy Embry from rising to speak or from calling for a vote on the second reading of the Labour Relations Reform Bill 2002?
The PRESIDENT: I do not think that question is in order, as I do not know how it pertains to the ministerial responsibilities of the minister. Hon PETER FOSS: I asked if that conduct was intended to promote the business of the Government in this Chamber. That is the role of the minister. I would like to see if he has done it properly. The PRESIDENT: The minister could address the final part of the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (3) I listened to the question with interest. I have adopted the view in the formulation of the question that the President was about to rule it out of order, particularly in view of the fact that it is not my responsibility to manage the business of the Government in this House. That is the responsibility of the Leader of the House, and I do not accept that it deals with my conduct as a minister. Yesterday, this House discussed the issue of swimming pool regulations until about 9.09 pm. Around that time, I raised the issue of swimming pool regulations with Hon Paddy Embry. If it was good enough for the House to argue over these regulations until 9.09 pm, I am entitled to have a conversation with one of the members for a few minutes afterwards.
Hon PETER FOSS: I asked if that conduct was intended to promote the business of the Government in this Chamber. That is the role of the minister. I would like to see if he has done it properly. The PRESIDENT: The minister could address the final part of the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (3) I listened to the question with interest. I have adopted the view in the formulation of the question that the President was about to rule it out of order, particularly in view of the fact that it is not my responsibility to manage the business of the Government in this House. That is the responsibility of the Leader of the House, and I do not accept that it deals with my conduct as a minister. Yesterday, this House discussed the issue of swimming pool regulations until about 9.09 pm. Around that time, I raised the issue of swimming pool regulations with Hon Paddy Embry. If it was good enough for the House to argue over these regulations until 9.09 pm, I am entitled to have a conversation with one of the members for a few minutes afterwards.
The PRESIDENT: The minister could address the final part of the question. Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (3) I listened to the question with interest. I have adopted the view in the formulation of the question that the President was about to rule it out of order, particularly in view of the fact that it is not my responsibility to manage the business of the Government in this House. That is the responsibility of the Leader of the House, and I do not accept that it deals with my conduct as a minister. Yesterday, this House discussed the issue of swimming pool regulations until about 9.09 pm. Around that time, I raised the issue of swimming pool regulations with Hon Paddy Embry. If it was good enough for the House to argue over these regulations until 9.09 pm, I am entitled to have a conversation with one of the members for a few minutes afterwards.
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (3) I listened to the question with interest. I have adopted the view in the formulation of the question that the President was about to rule it out of order, particularly in view of the fact that it is not my responsibility to manage the business of the Government in this House. That is the responsibility of the Leader of the House, and I do not accept that it deals with my conduct as a minister. Yesterday, this House discussed the issue of swimming pool regulations until about 9.09 pm. Around that time, I raised the issue of swimming pool regulations with Hon Paddy Embry. If it was good enough for the House to argue over these regulations until 9.09 pm, I am entitled to have a conversation with one of the members for a few minutes afterwards.
(3) I listened to the question with interest. I have adopted the view in the formulation of the question that the President was about to rule it out of order, particularly in view of the fact that it is not my responsibility to manage the business of the Government in this House. That is the responsibility of the Leader of the House, and I do not accept that it deals with my conduct as a minister. Yesterday, this House discussed the issue of swimming pool regulations until about 9.09 pm. Around that time, I raised the issue of swimming pool regulations with Hon Paddy Embry. If it was good enough for the House to argue over these regulations until 9.09 pm, I am entitled to have a conversation with one of the members for a few minutes afterwards.
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.