❓ The Minister for Education strongly criticizes the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for discouraging parents from paying voluntary school fees, accusing him of irresponsibility and harming schools. The Minister defends the government's policy on voluntary fees and highlights assistance for low-income families.
AnsweredQoN 690Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
SCHOOL FEES, COMMENTS BY DEPUTY LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
I was concerned to read in the Press today a comment from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that parents of government high school children must have rocks in their heads if they pay school fees. What impact could this have on the education of our children? Mr CARPENTER
I was concerned to read in the Press today a comment from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that parents of government high school children must have rocks in their heads if they pay school fees. What impact could this have on the education of our children? Mr CARPENTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Albany for some notice of the question and for his interest in and concern about this issue. I must admit I was surprised - I probably should not have been, given the track record of the member for Mitchell - to hear of any member of Parliament publicly discouraging parents from paying their contribution towards their children’s education next year. Mr Barnett: You did that. You campaigned against the charges. Mr CARPENTER: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the remarks of his deputy? Mr Barnett: I support compulsory charges for consumable items in schools. Mr CARPENTER: When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Education, he had the opportunity to make all school fees compulsory. However, he did not do that. Primary school fees have always been voluntary. Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member for Mitchell’s position on the contribution of voluntary fees? Mr Barnett: I support parents paying for consumables. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
Mr CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for Albany for some notice of the question and for his interest in and concern about this issue. I must admit I was surprised - I probably should not have been, given the track record of the member for Mitchell - to hear of any member of Parliament publicly discouraging parents from paying their contribution towards their children’s education next year. Mr Barnett: You did that. You campaigned against the charges. Mr CARPENTER: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the remarks of his deputy? Mr Barnett: I support compulsory charges for consumable items in schools. Mr CARPENTER: When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Education, he had the opportunity to make all school fees compulsory. However, he did not do that. Primary school fees have always been voluntary. Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member for Mitchell’s position on the contribution of voluntary fees? Mr Barnett: I support parents paying for consumables. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
I thank the member for Albany for some notice of the question and for his interest in and concern about this issue. I must admit I was surprised - I probably should not have been, given the track record of the member for Mitchell - to hear of any member of Parliament publicly discouraging parents from paying their contribution towards their children’s education next year. Mr Barnett: You did that. You campaigned against the charges. Mr CARPENTER: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the remarks of his deputy? Mr Barnett: I support compulsory charges for consumable items in schools. Mr CARPENTER: When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Education, he had the opportunity to make all school fees compulsory. However, he did not do that. Primary school fees have always been voluntary. Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member for Mitchell’s position on the contribution of voluntary fees? Mr Barnett: I support parents paying for consumables. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
I must admit I was surprised - I probably should not have been, given the track record of the member for Mitchell - to hear of any member of Parliament publicly discouraging parents from paying their contribution towards their children’s education next year. Mr Barnett: You did that. You campaigned against the charges. Mr CARPENTER: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the remarks of his deputy? Mr Barnett: I support compulsory charges for consumable items in schools. Mr CARPENTER: When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Education, he had the opportunity to make all school fees compulsory. However, he did not do that. Primary school fees have always been voluntary. Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member for Mitchell’s position on the contribution of voluntary fees? Mr Barnett: I support parents paying for consumables. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
Mr Barnett: You did that. You campaigned against the charges. Mr CARPENTER: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the remarks of his deputy? Mr Barnett: I support compulsory charges for consumable items in schools. Mr CARPENTER: When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Education, he had the opportunity to make all school fees compulsory. However, he did not do that. Primary school fees have always been voluntary. Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member for Mitchell’s position on the contribution of voluntary fees? Mr Barnett: I support parents paying for consumables. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
Mr CARPENTER: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the remarks of his deputy? Mr Barnett: I support compulsory charges for consumable items in schools. Mr CARPENTER: When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Education, he had the opportunity to make all school fees compulsory. However, he did not do that. Primary school fees have always been voluntary. Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member for Mitchell’s position on the contribution of voluntary fees? Mr Barnett: I support parents paying for consumables. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
Mr Barnett: I support compulsory charges for consumable items in schools. Mr CARPENTER: When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Education, he had the opportunity to make all school fees compulsory. However, he did not do that. Primary school fees have always been voluntary. Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member for Mitchell’s position on the contribution of voluntary fees? Mr Barnett: I support parents paying for consumables. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
Mr CARPENTER: When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Education, he had the opportunity to make all school fees compulsory. However, he did not do that. Primary school fees have always been voluntary. Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member for Mitchell’s position on the contribution of voluntary fees? Mr Barnett: I support parents paying for consumables. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
Mr Barnett: I support parents paying for consumables. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
Mr CARPENTER replied: I thank the member for Albany for some notice of the question and for his interest in and concern about this issue. I must admit I was surprised - I probably should not have been, given the track record of the member for Mitchell - to hear of any member of Parliament publicly discouraging parents from paying their contribution towards their children’s education next year. Mr Barnett: You did that. You campaigned against the charges. Mr CARPENTER: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the remarks of his deputy? Mr Barnett: I support compulsory charges for consumable items in schools. Mr CARPENTER: When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Education, he had the opportunity to make all school fees compulsory. However, he did not do that. Primary school fees have always been voluntary. Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member for Mitchell’s position on the contribution of voluntary fees? Mr Barnett: I support parents paying for consumables. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
I thank the member for Albany for some notice of the question and for his interest in and concern about this issue. I must admit I was surprised - I probably should not have been, given the track record of the member for Mitchell - to hear of any member of Parliament publicly discouraging parents from paying their contribution towards their children’s education next year. Mr Barnett: You did that. You campaigned against the charges. Mr CARPENTER: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the remarks of his deputy? Mr Barnett: I support compulsory charges for consumable items in schools. Mr CARPENTER: When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Education, he had the opportunity to make all school fees compulsory. However, he did not do that. Primary school fees have always been voluntary. Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member for Mitchell’s position on the contribution of voluntary fees? Mr Barnett: I support parents paying for consumables. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
I must admit I was surprised - I probably should not have been, given the track record of the member for Mitchell - to hear of any member of Parliament publicly discouraging parents from paying their contribution towards their children’s education next year. Mr Barnett: You did that. You campaigned against the charges. Mr CARPENTER: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the remarks of his deputy? Mr Barnett: I support compulsory charges for consumable items in schools. Mr CARPENTER: When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Education, he had the opportunity to make all school fees compulsory. However, he did not do that. Primary school fees have always been voluntary. Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member for Mitchell’s position on the contribution of voluntary fees? Mr Barnett: I support parents paying for consumables. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
Mr Barnett: You did that. You campaigned against the charges. Mr CARPENTER: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the remarks of his deputy? Mr Barnett: I support compulsory charges for consumable items in schools. Mr CARPENTER: When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Education, he had the opportunity to make all school fees compulsory. However, he did not do that. Primary school fees have always been voluntary. Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member for Mitchell’s position on the contribution of voluntary fees? Mr Barnett: I support parents paying for consumables. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
Mr CARPENTER: Does the Leader of the Opposition support the remarks of his deputy? Mr Barnett: I support compulsory charges for consumable items in schools. Mr CARPENTER: When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Education, he had the opportunity to make all school fees compulsory. However, he did not do that. Primary school fees have always been voluntary. Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member for Mitchell’s position on the contribution of voluntary fees? Mr Barnett: I support parents paying for consumables. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
Mr Barnett: I support compulsory charges for consumable items in schools. Mr CARPENTER: When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Education, he had the opportunity to make all school fees compulsory. However, he did not do that. Primary school fees have always been voluntary. Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member for Mitchell’s position on the contribution of voluntary fees? Mr Barnett: I support parents paying for consumables. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
Mr CARPENTER: When the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Education, he had the opportunity to make all school fees compulsory. However, he did not do that. Primary school fees have always been voluntary. Does the Leader of the Opposition support the member for Mitchell’s position on the contribution of voluntary fees? Mr Barnett: I support parents paying for consumables. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
Mr Barnett: I support parents paying for consumables. Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
Mr CARPENTER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s statement was one of the most disgraceful, irresponsible statements any member of Parliament could make. The Government’s position is consistent. In the compulsory years of school it believes the fees should be non-compulsory. However, of course the Government, as do all school principals, expects all parents to do their best to contribute. The Government is not prepared to have parents’ personal assets seized or to drag them through the courts if they are unable to pay. Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
Ms Hodson-Thomas interjected. Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
Mr CARPENTER: The member for Carine should know that the Government has always supported low income parents being assisted with fees. The Government increased the secondary assistance grant to a level higher than her side of politics was prepared to pay. I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
I do not think that, privately, any member of Parliament would support the comments of the member for Mitchell. Not one other member of Parliament would do something so ridiculous and disgraceful as that. What has he done to the capacity of principals in schools in his district to encourage parents to pay that contribution? He has made that very difficult and, as a result, the school principals in his electorate are screaming blue murder about his totally irresponsible attitude. With that attitude, he should not be sitting in this Parliament. He is a fool. He has sent a message to the people in his electorate not to contribute to their children’s education unless they are forced to pay. Every parent of primary school children pays a voluntary fee. The fee was increased from $9 to $63, but it was not made compulsory. The member for Mitchell has said to all parents that unless they are forced to contribute under the threat of going to court or having personal assets seized, they should not do so. He is a disgrace to the Parliament and to his electorate and anyone with any shred of decency would dissociate himself from those comments. He will do anything to get a headline, so he should contact the media, which he is fond of doing, and make amends. I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
I said that anything this member of Parliament says should not surprise us. I ask the National Party to think about the tactics the Deputy Leader of the Opposition applied during the by-election campaign in the seat of Merredin. What sort of person do they have? The other members of this Parliament should cast back their minds to the issue of the parliamentary superannuation scheme and test his integrity against the letter he signed. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition publicly called for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped and, unless I am mistaken, threatened to sue a newspaper reporter in his own electorate for suggesting that he was not serious. He signed a document calling for the parliamentary superannuation scheme to be scrapped, pointing out that he knew full well that it would have a detrimental effect on his own parliamentary position. Come the election, what happened? He changed his mind. He clung on like a limpet to the position that he had decried before the election. He is a disgrace to the Parliament. He should not be in this place. He is discouraging people from contributing to their children’s education. The clear message he has sent to every parent in this State is that unless people are forced, at the threat of going to court or having their personal assets seized, they should not contribute to their children’s education. No member of Parliament should advocate that position.
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.