❓ A parliamentary question regarding the actions of Hon Greg Smith in preventing Denise Brailey from giving evidence at a Finance Broking Industry inquiry. The Minister's response deflects direct answers, citing Hon Greg Smith's autonomy and potential standing order conflicts.
AnsweredQoN 139Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the desperate actions of the minister’s factional ally Hon Greg Smith, who prevented Denise Brailey from giving evidence in an open hearing of the Legislative Council’s Select Committee into the Finance Broking Industry in Western Australia, which is investigating the scandal, and ask - (1) Is the minister aware that Hon Greg Smith claimed his reasons for forcing the inquiry behind closed doors were both “personal” and “political”? (2) Did the minister speak to Hon Greg Smith about his actions prior to or after Friday’s hearing? (3) If so, does the minister know what political reasons Hon Greg Smith had for preventing a public hearing of Denise Brailey’s evidence? Points of Order Mr BARNETT: I rise on a point of order. Dr Gallop: This relates to his ministerial responsibilities. Mr BARNETT: I seek a ruling on and clarification of the appropriateness of commenting on a committee of the other House and its proceedings. Mr KOBELKE: The question was in three parts. The first part asked the minister whether he was aware of something that clearly relates to his ministerial responsibilities. The second part asked whether the minister had spoken to a member in the other Chamber, and that hardly reflects on the member or the other Chamber. The third part asked whether he could provide an explanation of what political issues might impact on this matter, which relates directly to the minister’s behaviour and his portfolio responsibilities. The SPEAKER: The old standing orders provided that members in this place were not to refer to debates in the other place. That prohibition is not in the new standing orders. To be allowed, the question must relate in some way to the minister’s responsibilities. I am having difficulty with the part of the question that asks the minister to comment on the thoughts of a member in another place. That is beyond the minister’s ability to answer. Dr Gallop: Not in all cases. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
(1) Is the minister aware that Hon Greg Smith claimed his reasons for forcing the inquiry behind closed doors were both “personal” and “political”? (2) Did the minister speak to Hon Greg Smith about his actions prior to or after Friday’s hearing? (3) If so, does the minister know what political reasons Hon Greg Smith had for preventing a public hearing of Denise Brailey’s evidence? Points of Order Mr BARNETT: I rise on a point of order. Dr Gallop: This relates to his ministerial responsibilities. Mr BARNETT: I seek a ruling on and clarification of the appropriateness of commenting on a committee of the other House and its proceedings. Mr KOBELKE: The question was in three parts. The first part asked the minister whether he was aware of something that clearly relates to his ministerial responsibilities. The second part asked whether the minister had spoken to a member in the other Chamber, and that hardly reflects on the member or the other Chamber. The third part asked whether he could provide an explanation of what political issues might impact on this matter, which relates directly to the minister’s behaviour and his portfolio responsibilities. The SPEAKER: The old standing orders provided that members in this place were not to refer to debates in the other place. That prohibition is not in the new standing orders. To be allowed, the question must relate in some way to the minister’s responsibilities. I am having difficulty with the part of the question that asks the minister to comment on the thoughts of a member in another place. That is beyond the minister’s ability to answer. Dr Gallop: Not in all cases. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
(2) Did the minister speak to Hon Greg Smith about his actions prior to or after Friday’s hearing? (3) If so, does the minister know what political reasons Hon Greg Smith had for preventing a public hearing of Denise Brailey’s evidence? Points of Order Mr BARNETT: I rise on a point of order. Dr Gallop: This relates to his ministerial responsibilities. Mr BARNETT: I seek a ruling on and clarification of the appropriateness of commenting on a committee of the other House and its proceedings. Mr KOBELKE: The question was in three parts. The first part asked the minister whether he was aware of something that clearly relates to his ministerial responsibilities. The second part asked whether the minister had spoken to a member in the other Chamber, and that hardly reflects on the member or the other Chamber. The third part asked whether he could provide an explanation of what political issues might impact on this matter, which relates directly to the minister’s behaviour and his portfolio responsibilities. The SPEAKER: The old standing orders provided that members in this place were not to refer to debates in the other place. That prohibition is not in the new standing orders. To be allowed, the question must relate in some way to the minister’s responsibilities. I am having difficulty with the part of the question that asks the minister to comment on the thoughts of a member in another place. That is beyond the minister’s ability to answer. Dr Gallop: Not in all cases. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
(3) If so, does the minister know what political reasons Hon Greg Smith had for preventing a public hearing of Denise Brailey’s evidence? Points of Order Mr BARNETT: I rise on a point of order. Dr Gallop: This relates to his ministerial responsibilities. Mr BARNETT: I seek a ruling on and clarification of the appropriateness of commenting on a committee of the other House and its proceedings. Mr KOBELKE: The question was in three parts. The first part asked the minister whether he was aware of something that clearly relates to his ministerial responsibilities. The second part asked whether the minister had spoken to a member in the other Chamber, and that hardly reflects on the member or the other Chamber. The third part asked whether he could provide an explanation of what political issues might impact on this matter, which relates directly to the minister’s behaviour and his portfolio responsibilities. The SPEAKER: The old standing orders provided that members in this place were not to refer to debates in the other place. That prohibition is not in the new standing orders. To be allowed, the question must relate in some way to the minister’s responsibilities. I am having difficulty with the part of the question that asks the minister to comment on the thoughts of a member in another place. That is beyond the minister’s ability to answer. Dr Gallop: Not in all cases. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Dr Gallop: This relates to his ministerial responsibilities. Mr BARNETT: I seek a ruling on and clarification of the appropriateness of commenting on a committee of the other House and its proceedings. Mr KOBELKE: The question was in three parts. The first part asked the minister whether he was aware of something that clearly relates to his ministerial responsibilities. The second part asked whether the minister had spoken to a member in the other Chamber, and that hardly reflects on the member or the other Chamber. The third part asked whether he could provide an explanation of what political issues might impact on this matter, which relates directly to the minister’s behaviour and his portfolio responsibilities. The SPEAKER: The old standing orders provided that members in this place were not to refer to debates in the other place. That prohibition is not in the new standing orders. To be allowed, the question must relate in some way to the minister’s responsibilities. I am having difficulty with the part of the question that asks the minister to comment on the thoughts of a member in another place. That is beyond the minister’s ability to answer. Dr Gallop: Not in all cases. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Mr BARNETT: I seek a ruling on and clarification of the appropriateness of commenting on a committee of the other House and its proceedings. Mr KOBELKE: The question was in three parts. The first part asked the minister whether he was aware of something that clearly relates to his ministerial responsibilities. The second part asked whether the minister had spoken to a member in the other Chamber, and that hardly reflects on the member or the other Chamber. The third part asked whether he could provide an explanation of what political issues might impact on this matter, which relates directly to the minister’s behaviour and his portfolio responsibilities. The SPEAKER: The old standing orders provided that members in this place were not to refer to debates in the other place. That prohibition is not in the new standing orders. To be allowed, the question must relate in some way to the minister’s responsibilities. I am having difficulty with the part of the question that asks the minister to comment on the thoughts of a member in another place. That is beyond the minister’s ability to answer. Dr Gallop: Not in all cases. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Mr KOBELKE: The question was in three parts. The first part asked the minister whether he was aware of something that clearly relates to his ministerial responsibilities. The second part asked whether the minister had spoken to a member in the other Chamber, and that hardly reflects on the member or the other Chamber. The third part asked whether he could provide an explanation of what political issues might impact on this matter, which relates directly to the minister’s behaviour and his portfolio responsibilities. The SPEAKER: The old standing orders provided that members in this place were not to refer to debates in the other place. That prohibition is not in the new standing orders. To be allowed, the question must relate in some way to the minister’s responsibilities. I am having difficulty with the part of the question that asks the minister to comment on the thoughts of a member in another place. That is beyond the minister’s ability to answer. Dr Gallop: Not in all cases. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
The SPEAKER: The old standing orders provided that members in this place were not to refer to debates in the other place. That prohibition is not in the new standing orders. To be allowed, the question must relate in some way to the minister’s responsibilities. I am having difficulty with the part of the question that asks the minister to comment on the thoughts of a member in another place. That is beyond the minister’s ability to answer. Dr Gallop: Not in all cases. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Dr Gallop: Not in all cases. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
(1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
[See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
(1) Is the minister aware that Hon Greg Smith claimed his reasons for forcing the inquiry behind closed doors were both “personal” and “political”? (2) Did the minister speak to Hon Greg Smith about his actions prior to or after Friday’s hearing? (3) If so, does the minister know what political reasons Hon Greg Smith had for preventing a public hearing of Denise Brailey’s evidence? Points of Order Mr BARNETT: I rise on a point of order. Dr Gallop: This relates to his ministerial responsibilities. Mr BARNETT: I seek a ruling on and clarification of the appropriateness of commenting on a committee of the other House and its proceedings. Mr KOBELKE: The question was in three parts. The first part asked the minister whether he was aware of something that clearly relates to his ministerial responsibilities. The second part asked whether the minister had spoken to a member in the other Chamber, and that hardly reflects on the member or the other Chamber. The third part asked whether he could provide an explanation of what political issues might impact on this matter, which relates directly to the minister’s behaviour and his portfolio responsibilities. The SPEAKER: The old standing orders provided that members in this place were not to refer to debates in the other place. That prohibition is not in the new standing orders. To be allowed, the question must relate in some way to the minister’s responsibilities. I am having difficulty with the part of the question that asks the minister to comment on the thoughts of a member in another place. That is beyond the minister’s ability to answer. Dr Gallop: Not in all cases. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
(2) Did the minister speak to Hon Greg Smith about his actions prior to or after Friday’s hearing? (3) If so, does the minister know what political reasons Hon Greg Smith had for preventing a public hearing of Denise Brailey’s evidence? Points of Order Mr BARNETT: I rise on a point of order. Dr Gallop: This relates to his ministerial responsibilities. Mr BARNETT: I seek a ruling on and clarification of the appropriateness of commenting on a committee of the other House and its proceedings. Mr KOBELKE: The question was in three parts. The first part asked the minister whether he was aware of something that clearly relates to his ministerial responsibilities. The second part asked whether the minister had spoken to a member in the other Chamber, and that hardly reflects on the member or the other Chamber. The third part asked whether he could provide an explanation of what political issues might impact on this matter, which relates directly to the minister’s behaviour and his portfolio responsibilities. The SPEAKER: The old standing orders provided that members in this place were not to refer to debates in the other place. That prohibition is not in the new standing orders. To be allowed, the question must relate in some way to the minister’s responsibilities. I am having difficulty with the part of the question that asks the minister to comment on the thoughts of a member in another place. That is beyond the minister’s ability to answer. Dr Gallop: Not in all cases. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
(3) If so, does the minister know what political reasons Hon Greg Smith had for preventing a public hearing of Denise Brailey’s evidence? Points of Order Mr BARNETT: I rise on a point of order. Dr Gallop: This relates to his ministerial responsibilities. Mr BARNETT: I seek a ruling on and clarification of the appropriateness of commenting on a committee of the other House and its proceedings. Mr KOBELKE: The question was in three parts. The first part asked the minister whether he was aware of something that clearly relates to his ministerial responsibilities. The second part asked whether the minister had spoken to a member in the other Chamber, and that hardly reflects on the member or the other Chamber. The third part asked whether he could provide an explanation of what political issues might impact on this matter, which relates directly to the minister’s behaviour and his portfolio responsibilities. The SPEAKER: The old standing orders provided that members in this place were not to refer to debates in the other place. That prohibition is not in the new standing orders. To be allowed, the question must relate in some way to the minister’s responsibilities. I am having difficulty with the part of the question that asks the minister to comment on the thoughts of a member in another place. That is beyond the minister’s ability to answer. Dr Gallop: Not in all cases. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Dr Gallop: This relates to his ministerial responsibilities. Mr BARNETT: I seek a ruling on and clarification of the appropriateness of commenting on a committee of the other House and its proceedings. Mr KOBELKE: The question was in three parts. The first part asked the minister whether he was aware of something that clearly relates to his ministerial responsibilities. The second part asked whether the minister had spoken to a member in the other Chamber, and that hardly reflects on the member or the other Chamber. The third part asked whether he could provide an explanation of what political issues might impact on this matter, which relates directly to the minister’s behaviour and his portfolio responsibilities. The SPEAKER: The old standing orders provided that members in this place were not to refer to debates in the other place. That prohibition is not in the new standing orders. To be allowed, the question must relate in some way to the minister’s responsibilities. I am having difficulty with the part of the question that asks the minister to comment on the thoughts of a member in another place. That is beyond the minister’s ability to answer. Dr Gallop: Not in all cases. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Mr BARNETT: I seek a ruling on and clarification of the appropriateness of commenting on a committee of the other House and its proceedings. Mr KOBELKE: The question was in three parts. The first part asked the minister whether he was aware of something that clearly relates to his ministerial responsibilities. The second part asked whether the minister had spoken to a member in the other Chamber, and that hardly reflects on the member or the other Chamber. The third part asked whether he could provide an explanation of what political issues might impact on this matter, which relates directly to the minister’s behaviour and his portfolio responsibilities. The SPEAKER: The old standing orders provided that members in this place were not to refer to debates in the other place. That prohibition is not in the new standing orders. To be allowed, the question must relate in some way to the minister’s responsibilities. I am having difficulty with the part of the question that asks the minister to comment on the thoughts of a member in another place. That is beyond the minister’s ability to answer. Dr Gallop: Not in all cases. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Mr KOBELKE: The question was in three parts. The first part asked the minister whether he was aware of something that clearly relates to his ministerial responsibilities. The second part asked whether the minister had spoken to a member in the other Chamber, and that hardly reflects on the member or the other Chamber. The third part asked whether he could provide an explanation of what political issues might impact on this matter, which relates directly to the minister’s behaviour and his portfolio responsibilities. The SPEAKER: The old standing orders provided that members in this place were not to refer to debates in the other place. That prohibition is not in the new standing orders. To be allowed, the question must relate in some way to the minister’s responsibilities. I am having difficulty with the part of the question that asks the minister to comment on the thoughts of a member in another place. That is beyond the minister’s ability to answer. Dr Gallop: Not in all cases. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
The SPEAKER: The old standing orders provided that members in this place were not to refer to debates in the other place. That prohibition is not in the new standing orders. To be allowed, the question must relate in some way to the minister’s responsibilities. I am having difficulty with the part of the question that asks the minister to comment on the thoughts of a member in another place. That is beyond the minister’s ability to answer. Dr Gallop: Not in all cases. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Dr Gallop: Not in all cases. Questions without Notice Resumed Mr SHAVE replied: (1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
(1)-(3) Hon Greg Smith’s political reasons are for him to determine. Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Ms MacTiernan: Read out the note. Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Mr SHAVE: The member has asked me to read out the note. It points out that the standing orders of the upper House preclude Hon Greg Smith’s giving his reasons. If members wish me to do so, I will table the memo. [See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
[See paper No 211.] Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Mr SHAVE: Was that not incestuous? Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Whatever Mr Smith's reasons, he made the right decision to ask for the matter to be heard in camera. The Gunning inquiry report indicates - people should be aware of this, as I think I mentioned it last week - that Mitchell and the Gunning committee have referred some of the matters to be discussed to the police and to another body. To discuss those issues in open hearing - Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Dr Gallop interjected. Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
Mr SHAVE: When Mr Jarvis gave evidence in open session, he talked about people putting words in his mouth and trying to get him to sign declarations which were not true in relation to discussions he had with me. It will be nice when those findings are released to find out what an independent person thinks about some of the proposed witnesses to this inquiry.
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.