Member conduct
David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (12:16): (53) My question is to the same minister but in her capacity as Minister for Training and Skills, and I refer to the decision of Minister Danny Pearson to award a $5000 per intern wage subsidy to Computershare under the $64 million digital jobs program while he held up to $10,000 in Computershare shares. I ask: Minister, given your current responsibilities as Minister for Training and Skills, will you immediately review this grant to Computershare and the obvious stench of corruption around it?
The PRESIDENT: I was thinking about something else rather than the previous thought I had about your previous question. I think I put a rod to my own back, because I probably should not have let your first question go to the minister. This time I will be consistent and let the minister answer as she sees fit.
Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Training and Skills, Minister for Higher Education, Minister for Agriculture) (12:17): Again Mr Davis has got it wrong, and it is because he has not done basic homework. The fact of the matter is that in terms of the skills and training system I am the minister. When it comes to higher education I am the minister. When it comes to agriculture I am the minister. But there are a whole range of ministers in this government that undertake various training and skills development programs. There are a whole range of them, and they come from various funding sources. Indeed, Mr Davis, if you did your homework, you would be able to provide a question that actually could possibly be answered, but again you just fail to understand how skills and training is delivered in this state and who is responsible for what within their own portfolios. Mr Davis, again another wasted question from the opposition.
The PRESIDENT: Before I call Mr Davis for his supplementary, the reason I paused before was that I am not too sure, Mr Davis, whether in your question you made an accusation of impropriety against a sitting member of this current term of government. I remind Mr Davis that, if that was the fact, you can only do that in a substantive motion.
David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (12:19): The minister might not want to accept that she has got a role for training and skills across the whole of the state and the whole of the government. She has actually got a role to coordinate and make sure training and skills is appropriately implemented. I ask, therefore: will you review any other grants made by departments administered by Danny Pearson over the last four years to entities within the training and skills area to ensure that no grants to entities in the training and skills sector were made where a conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest may have existed?
The PRESIDENT: So that I do look consistent, I am not going to put that supplementary question, because the minister clearly in her substantive answer said it was not her responsibility. You have gone back to the same topic, and I am not going to put the supplementary question to the minister.
Georgie Crozier: On a point of order, President, in terms of your ruling just now, the minister did argue the case that she was not responsible, but she never actually told Mr Davis who the responsible minister was, so in terms of his supplementary question she is responsible for training and skills and higher education. In terms of the minister’s response and in terms of Mr Davis’s supplementary, which you have just ruled out, who is the one responsible that Minister Tierney was referring to?
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Ms Crozier. There is no point of order.
David DAVIS: I move:
That the minister’s evasive answer be taken into account on the next day of meeting.
The PRESIDENT: I am happy to put that if you rephrase it.
David DAVIS: I move:
That the minister’s answer be taken into account on the next day of meeting.
Motion agreed to.
David DAVIS: I desire to move, by leave:
That the motion be put forthwith.
Leave refused.