Hansard

Matters of public interest

Bare-knuckle fighting—Combat Sports Commission

Matter of public interest

The Speaker informed the Assembly that he was in receipt within the prescribed time of a letter from the Leader of the Opposition seeking to debate a matter of public interest.

(In compliance with standing orders, at least five members rose in their places.)

Mr Basil Zempilas (Churchlands—Leader of the Opposition) (2:51 pm): I move:

That this house calls on the Minister for Sport and Recreation to table the minutes of the Combat Sports Commission meeting on 5 June 2025, provide an explanation as to why the Combat Sports Commission denied the application for a bare-knuckle fighting event and take the necessary action to ban bare-knuckle fighting events in Western Australia.

The opposition is raising this issue because, once again, we have another example of an issue that is of significant interest—

Several members interjected.

The Speaker: Sorry, Leader of the Opposition. Members, there is a lot of background noise going on. If you need to have any conversations, please take them outside the chamber. Carry on, leader.

Mr Basil Zempilas: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The opposition is raising this issue because once again we have an example of a significant issue that is of interest to Western Australia, yet we have nothing but secrecy from this government, and especially from the Minister for Sport and Recreation, on how this decision was reached.

As members heard at the outset, we are asking the minister in her response to the matter of public interest to use this as an opportunity to table the minutes from the Combat Sports Commission meeting on 5 June 2025. This issue had long-running and sustained commentary from the Premier and the sports minister. It also had long-running commentary from the Combat Sports Commission itself and its chair. Members will recall that in the weeks leading up to this decision, there was lots of language about how and why the Combat Sports Commission would ultimately find a way to approve this event, which it was clear that members of the public did not want. It was not only members of the public; it was pretty clear from looking around this chamber when it was raised by the honourable member to my right as a question to the Premier that many members in this chamber also were not in favour of bare-knuckle fighting or bare-knuckle boxing being approved in Western Australia.

For those who perhaps did not follow the very public commentary that came from members opposite in the media and, indeed, from the chair of the commission, bare-knuckle boxing is an event in which competitors wear no gloves, padding or protection, and they punch or strike each other in the face or the head until one of them can no longer continue. It could be men or women. It was described by the Australian Medical Association as the human equivalent of dog fighting. When member Rundle raised the question in a direct question to the Premier, I was not surprised—

Ms Rita Saffioti: Member for Rundle?

Mr Basil Zempilas: That is his name.

Several members interjected.

Mr Basil Zempilas: That is not his name?

Point of order

Ms Rita Saffioti: The Leader of the Opposition has to refer to members—can you sit down; I am taking a point of order?

Several members interjected.

The Speaker: Members! The Treasurer is making a point of order. Carry on, Treasurer.

Ms Rita Saffioti: The Leader of the Opposition has an obligation to refer to another member in this place by their title and not by their name.

The Speaker: Yes. I will uphold that point of order. Leader of the Opposition, you do have to refer to members by their title, and it is, for your benefit, the member for Roe. Carry on, Leader of the Opposition.

Proceeding resumed

Mr Basil Zempilas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Treasurer also.

Members will recall that the member for Roe raised a very important and well-constructed question and aimed it at the Premier. I and many others on this side oppose bare-knuckle fighting or bare-knuckle boxing, which, again, is two competitors in a ring, men or women, with no padding, no gloves and no protection punching each other in the face or the head until one of them can no longer continue. I was not surprised to look around the chamber and see the discomfort that many members in this chamber had for this sport being approved or for language taking it towards approval by this state government. There was not a considerable number of people who wanted this sport. There was no demand. It was and is a barbaric sport, and, as I said, it was described by the AMA as the human equivalent of dog fighting.

The Combat Sports Commission released a media statement following its meeting on 5 June regarding the application for a bare-knuckle fighting event in which it said:

After careful consideration, the Board was not satisfied the event met the required criteria.

That is all we got. For weeks leading up to it, we got a running commentary from the responsible minister, the Premier and the Combat Sports Commission itself on the grounds and the way in which it could and ultimately would be approved, yet there was not an explanation that went with the sudden about-face. I remind people that even on the morning of the decision, the Treasurer, who is the minister with the relevant authority here, and the Premier were out talking about the impending decision. The sports minister said that she could not tell the difference between the Ultimate Fighting Championship and bare-knuckle fighting. She said, "I can't." Hours later, the Combat Sports Commission ruled that bare-knuckle fighting will not be coming to Western Australia. What does that actually mean now for the UFC? Does that mean that that sport is in jeopardy? I will leave that there. That question was raised by the minister herself.

There are more questions than answers out of that one-line statement. That is why we call upon the minister to give us more information. Can we see the minutes of the Combat Sports Commission meeting in which it made this determination? We are asking the minister to not only table the minutes of the meeting so that the public can gain a better understanding of the decision, but also explain what criteria was assessed and what criteria was not met. This is important because there was a lot of concern about the event being held in Western Australia. It is barbaric. It is two people punching themselves in the head.

I am looking around the chamber to see whether there is anybody with their head up saying, "That's something I supported", or, "That's something I wanted." They certainly did not do that when the member for Roe asked the Premier a question. Heads were down. No-one put up their head or suggested—

Several members interjected.

The Speaker: Members! Members of government, minister, Attorney General! Carry on Leader of the Liberal Party.

Mr Basil Zempilas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is very kind.

No-one put up their head—

Ms Rita Saffioti interjected.

The Speaker: Treasurer!

Mr Basil Zempilas: No-one put up their head. No-one on the other side wanted to show their head and offer their support. It was only the Premier and the Minister for Sport and Recreation. Perhaps the Minister for Corrective Services supported it. It was not quite clear whether he supported it or not. When we looked around the chamber after the member for Roe had asked a very pertinent and relevant question, we could see that members opposite and to our left had their heads down. Mr Speaker, I will tell you why they had their heads down. It is because there are a lot of good and decent people in this chamber who know, like we do, that a barbaric sport like this one should not be allowed in Western Australia. Members heard what the Australian Medical Association said about it and they know what people think of it. It is two people standing in a ring, with no gloves, no padding and no protection, punching each other in the head—in the head—until one of them can no longer continue, yet the Premier and the sports minister said, "That's okay. That's all right because if it doesn't happen, if it doesn't get approved, it will go underground." It has not been approved, so what measures will now be taken by this government to ensure that, as was stated by the Premier and by the minister and by the head of the sports commission himself, it will not go underground? What is the state of play with these events? There has been no explanation as to why that happened after the minister and the chair of the Combat Sports Commission spent weeks publicly arguing why the event should proceed. It is an event that the sports minister thought was a tremendous thing—a tremendous thing. She wanted two people standing in a ring and punching each other in the head. The Premier of Western Australia wanted it as well. He wanted two men or two women with no gloves—no gloves.

Several members interjected.

The Speaker: Members of the government!

Several members interjected.

Mr Basil Zempilas: Again, a very clear demonstration that—

Several members interjected.

The Speaker: Leader of the Opposition, please take a seat.

Point of order

Mr Shane Love: My understanding of the standing orders is that repeated interjections are disorderly conduct and I ask that it be brought to order.

The Speaker: Thank you, Leader of the Nationals WA. I shall not uphold that point of order, but I will make a comment to the government side that they will get the opportunity to have their 30 minutes once opposition members have finished. You may not like what you are hearing, but you can rebut it when you get the opportunity.

Proceeding resumed

Mr Basil Zempilas: We are hearing from responses that those opposite think that two men or two women punching each other in the head, with no padding, no protection and no gloves, is okay, and that is the sort of event we want in Western Australia. Again, Mr Speaker, I look around the chamber to see to what eye contact I am greeted with—not much. Therefore, I ask—

Several members interjected.

Mr Basil Zempilas: It is a magnificent issue to laugh at!

Several members interjected.

The Speaker: Members!

Mr Basil Zempilas: Isn't it magnificent that members opposite make light of this. This is a sport in which people punch each other in their head, with no gloves, until one of them can no longer continue. I ask: What advice had the commission received from the minister? What has the organisation seeking to hold the event said in response to the decision and should we be expecting a new application? When was the minister made aware of the decision? What discussions did the minister, her office or the department have with the Combat Sports Commission ahead of it considering the application? We are not saying, by the way, minister, that it is inappropriate for you, as minister, to have had these discussions with the commission. In fact, the Combat Sports Act 1987 is actually very clear that the commission is subject to the control and direction of the minister. It is clear, though, that on the morning of the announcement that was not where this decision was heading. In the hours that followed, there was a complete about-face and a one-line statement was issued that said it would not be going ahead.

Mr Speaker, we want to make sure that while the minister was saying one thing publicly, neither her office nor the minister was saying something different to the Combat Sports Commission Board. I think we are entitled to understand how this very contentious decision, which had a lot of airplay and direct commentary from the Premier, the minister and the chair of the sports commission, came about.

We also heard the Minister for Sport and Recreation say she would trust the process of how these decisions were made. It is interesting that when it suits members on the other side, the process can be used and can be trusted. When it comes to other matters, like, for example, the racetrack at Burswood Park, that process goes out the window, with no transparency, no business case and no demand. We know what the consultation was from those opposite prior to that announcement being made. We also know that one announcement billed it as a racetrack, with the Premier in a racing car announcing the racetrack. But once members of the public became aware of what it was and their opposition to it began to build, members opposite no longer trusted the process. They decided then that they would rename this facility on the run, calling it an entertainment complex. On that issue, there will be more questions as the weeks go on.

I have further questions. Has the minister shared these concerns with the commission, considering its decision not to approve the event? If that is truly the case, why did the minister not overrule the Combat Sports Commission's decision on the event? There has been a lot of commentary from the minister.

Ms Rita Saffioti interjected.

Mr Basil Zempilas: I understand that is her style. I understand that is the style of the minister over there.

Several members interjected.

The Speaker: Members!

Mr Basil Zempilas: Perhaps I can present a form of argument that the minister can understand. If she is struggling to understand that people on this side are asking questions about how a decision to approve a barbaric sport was reached, and if the minister wants to ridicule that and say, "I'm not following the argument", perhaps I can present the argument in a different form. Perhaps I will go to The Sunday Times from last week and the column by Ben Harvey. He presents a well-read column each weekend. This column was published last weekend—

Mr Daniel Pastorelli: You're relying on another person's argument.

Mr Basil Zempilas: No. The article states that Rita Saffioti—

Mr Daniel Pastorelli: Your new argument is another person's argument.

Several members interjected.

The Speaker: Members! We have a point of order. Treasurer—

Mr Basil Zempilas interjected.

The Speaker: Member!

Ms Rita Saffioti interjected.

The Speaker: Treasurer! Treasurer, I am calling you for the first time. Leader of the Opposition, I am going to call you for the first time as well. You do not keep going on while I am talking. We have a point of order and I have told you all about three million times that points of order are heard in silence.

Point of order

Mr Shane Love: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a matter of public interest motion and there is half an hour for debate for each side. I think the government members can wait for their half an hour and I ask that their constant interjections be brought to order.

The Speaker: I will uphold that point of order. Government members, if you continue to interject, I will continue to call you. You will get the opportunity to respond. Carry on, Leader of the Opposition.

Proceeding resumed

Mr Basil Zempilas: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Members on my side might consider that each of these interjections we are hearing go to those opposite supporting bare-knuckle boxing. Do not worry about me; I am certainly not worried about me. I am worried about safety in our community and the example that it sets.

I refer to Ben Harvey's column published the weekend before last. I will edit it because some of it includes dialled-up language that I do not think would be appropriate to read, minister. He wrote:

Rita Saffioti …

The writing was on the wall that bare-knuckle boxing was politically poisonous but you didn't have the guts to use your power as Sports Minister to veto it.

Instead, you let the Combat Sports Commission do your dirty work by putting a last-minute kybosh on the Bare Knuckle Boxing Championship event.

You were the only person who wanted this thing to happen, Rita.

For weeks you failed to read the room, insisting community concern was a storm in a teacup that would blow over when West Australians realised just how much fun it was watching two people bash each other the way nature intended.

You knew best.

Perhaps it was because eight years ago you stared down those opposed to cage fighting.

…

You refused to intervene even when it emerged that a former bikie who went to jail for bashing a police informant was being considered for the card.

His opponent? A British reality TV "star" called Aaron Chalmers who, presumably, decided that having his head punched in was worth it because it gave him the requisite brain damage for another season on Geordie Shore.

"The advice to me is that with very strict protocols and criteria that the event, if the organiser were to meet that, that it could be conducted in WA …

I digress from Ben Harvey's work to say at that point the minister was asked the questions: Will you intervene? Will you veto it? The minister said, "No, I will not." Members on this side, please be aware that the minister had the opportunity to intervene. The Premier had the opportunity to intervene. They did not. They gave bare-knuckle boxing the okay. They said that punching someone else in the head with no padding and no protection in a ring with no boxing gloves was okay. I go back to the column:

In making it clear you were a woman not for turning you made the entire Cabinet look like hapless idiots.

Why buy tickets to Cirque du Soleil when you can watch Meredith Hammat contorting herself while dodging questions about how a health minister could endorse what the Australian Medical Association was calling a blood sport.

…

Your government, which adhered slavishly to medical advice during COVID, was very quick to discount the opinion of doctors on this one. I hope you apologised to Meredith for making her look such a fool.

You owe Paul Papalia a beer as well.

Ben Harvey writes:

He didn't hesitate in going over the top for you, making out that bare-knuckle boxing was something the Famous Five might indulge in, refreshing themselves with lashings of ginger beer between bouts.

At least Paul sounded like he believed what he was saying. Perhaps his performance was compelling because he was a navy clearance diver before politics. Let's face it, anyone who swims towards … was not heading in the right direction.

Two men enter, one man leaves, they would have chanted, had you asked.

Finally, from the column:

You took advantage of … weakness and insisted they back your absurd rationale that the Combat Sports Commission could never be questioned.

It's not the bloody Roman Senate, Rita …

…

It was only when the July 19 card was confirmed that you appeared to have realised there might be a political problem.

The article refers to the chair as follows:

… even managed to keep a straight face when he said that last one. I was waiting for him to gush, "I would like to thank the Academy" …

…

… had your back, Rita. And you hung him out to dry. You made him look like a stooge.

Does anyone believe that there was no political pressure here?

That nobody in the executive arm of government had a quiet word to the commission about the need to somehow get the … back in the horse?

That there were no phone calls asking that the commission take one for the team?

The answers to these questions might be "no", "not relevant" or "further explanation required". That is why we call upon the minister to allow us to see how the Combat Sports Commission came to its decision and to answer some of those questions I have outlined.

I have a couple of final matters. I refer also to the fact that this event was to be held at RAC Arena. We know who runs, owns and operates RAC Arena; it is a state government facility. The Minister for Tourism might perhaps inform the public how the event was able to go on sale through RAC Arena's website before the Combat Sports Commission had even decided that it had been approved. The Minister for Tourism was asked about this by the media and was unable to explain how the event was being promoted on the RAC Arena's website without formal approval. It is another example of the minister not being across the details of his portfolio. The Minister for Sport and Recreation, I think, was also asked about it being on the website and she replied by saying, "I'll look into it." Now is the opportunity for all those opposite to provide the explanation to the public as to how this has occurred.

Feedback from the public has been that this is not a sport that they want sanctioned by the state. If the Minister for Sport and Recreation is subsequently not prepared to step up and say "That's enough", we call on the Premier to say that bare-knuckle boxing, with no gloves, no padding and no protection, where people punch each other in the head until one of them can no longer continue, is not a sport that we want in Western Australia. That is not what we want. The Premier said, "It's not my cup of tea." The Minister for Sport and Recreation said, "I don't like combat sports." The Minister for Health said, "What I will say is I'm not the sports minister." The Minister for Preventative Health said, "I don't like it." The Minister for Racing and Gaming appeared to support it. He defended the minister, which we found quite strange since as we all know in this place, the Minister for Racing and Gaming was going to be removed from cabinet to make way for the minister's sidekick, the member for Landsdale.

I ask again—on cue; perfect timing—minister, can we please see the determination from the Combat Sports Commission? Will she explain to the people of Western Australia and to this house how this decision was raised? Will she, and if not her, will the Premier of Western Australia stand up and say that bare-knuckle boxing, a sport where competitors punch each other in the head and the face with no padding, no protection and no gloves, is not a sport that anybody in Western Australia wants?

The Speaker: I give the call to the member for Rundle—no, Roe!

Mr Peter Rundle (Roe) (3:17 pm): I am glad you have cleared that up, Mr Speaker!

I certainly support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, which states:

That this house calls on the Minister for Sport and Recreation to table the minutes of the Combat Sports Commission meeting on 5 June 2025, provide an explanation as to why the Combat Sports Commission denied the application for a bare-knuckle fighting event and to take the necessary action to ban bare-knuckle fighting events in Western Australia.

In some ways I feel like I started the controversy here by asking the Premier to stand up and show some leadership. On 29 May, I asked him:

I refer to the prospect of bare-knuckle fighting coming to Perth and the Australian Medical Association (WA) referring to this activity as the human equivalent of dog fighting. Will the Premier show leadership and step up to prevent this violent event from being staged in Western Australia, or is his government simply going to sit on the sidelines and handball responsibility to the Combat Sports Commission?

Once again, I was shouted down by members opposite, as seems to occur whether it is a question on live export or something of that nature. But now they are not saying a word because they know they are in the wrong, and they know that the Premier pushed it off to the sidelines. He said, "It's not everyone's cup of tea." It is not my cup of tea, either. He said:

The commission has advised that bare-knuckle boxing is an emerging discipline …

As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, bare-knuckle fighting involves two boxers punching each other until one of them cannot continue. Of course, the Premier said that at least two medical practitioners must be in attendance and the participants are required to have experience and knowledge, which makes us all feel a lot better! That was the Premier's response. That is quite disturbing in my estimation. He did not show any leadership, and that is not acceptable to the people of Western Australia.

I turn to the comments made by Bob Kucera, the Chair of the Western Australian Compat Sports Commission, on 30 May when he was speaking with Nadia Mitsopoulos on ABC radio. As a former health minister, Mr Kucera agreed that bare-knuckle fighting is brutal, but he said that if it were banned, it would go underground. He also said that in some ways, it is, as people say, sanctioned violence. He said this only days before the permit for the event was denied by the commission, even though no details or minutes have been released.

I will provide a short history because I have only a short time left. In March, Bare Knuckle Fighting Championship founder David Feldman announced on social media his intention to bring the boxing event to Perth. As we know, former Minister for Sport and Recreation and member for Mandurah David Templeman got wind of this and approved changing the Combat Sports Commission's guidelines in February, and so it went from there. This was an opportunity for the government to have another event. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it is quite bizarre that the Minister for Tourism did not realise that this was being advertised on the website of one of the premises that she is in charge of. What is not bizarre are the comments made by Michael Page, the President of the Australian Medical Association (Western Australia):

We have a domestic violence crisis; we have people sorting out their problems with their fists in Northbridge on Saturday night; this is not the type of example our community needs …

We have so many fantastic other sports, so many opportunities for tourism and entertainment in our community, we don't need this type of race to the bottom with bloody violence.

He also said:

I think what we need to be doing is drawing a line and saying we don't need a proliferation of these activities because there's nothing positive in them when we have so many other sporting options.

Those are the words of Michael Page, the President of the Australian Medical Association (Western Australia). Once again, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition's concerns about the Minister for Sport and Recreation. She can admit that she was wrong.

I turn to the $217 million Burswood racetrack and quote from Joe Spagnolo's article of last Sunday:

Imagine the noise, atmosphere, and crowds as V8s fly around a new and specially designed race track in Burswood Park, just a stone's throw from the city. It'll be incredible …

It has now been changed to a sporting and cultural precinct. The member for Landsdale was down there trying to bat off all those residents who were putting their yellow sticky notes on the notice board. About 98% of them are opposed to the Burswood racetrack. The minister can admit that she is wrong. We now have the likes of Anthony Mundine and Connor McGregor putting forward proposals to the government. Shut it down!

Ms Rita Saffioti (West Swan—Minister for Sport and Recreation) (3:24 pm): What an incredible monologue and performance by members on the other side. When I saw the matter of public interest today, I thought, "Hang on. This is budget week and their MPI is about an event that isn't happening." Opposition members have dedicated an hour of Parliament, in what is probably the biggest week of the year, to an event that is not happening. For all those newcomers like the Leader of the Opposition, an MPI is the one hour in a sitting week when opposition members can rise to present the biggest issue in the state, and their biggest issue is an event that is not happening.

Several members interjected.

The Speaker: Members of the opposition! This is what happens during an MPI debate. You get your 30 minutes to say what you want to say and the government gets 30 minutes to respond, so please stop your interjections. We have not even been going for two minutes. Carry on, minister.

Ms Rita Saffioti: When I was preparing for budget week, the one thing that I did not think we would be debating was an event that is not happening. I did not think that the biggest issue in the state today is an event that is not happening. That is where we are at. This is coming from the Liberal and National Parties, which believe that anyone should be able to carry a gun on the streets: "Anyone should be able to carry a gun. How dare you—

Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.

The Speaker: Member for Central Wheatbelt.

Ms Rita Saffioti:—deny the rights of people to carry guns in our streets." This is the National and Liberal Parties.

Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.

The Speaker: Member for Central Wheatbelt, I call you to order for the first time.

Ms Rita Saffioti: The National and Liberal Parties opposed gun law reform and taking thousands of guns off the streets.

Mr Lachlan Hunter interjected.

The Speaker: Member for Central Wheatbelt, I call you to order for the second time.

Ms Rita Saffioti: The Liberal and National Parties have said, "How dare you deny anyone's right to carry a gun. If they want to shoot, they should be allowed to shoot." That is what they have said. They come in here all moralistic. The Liberal Party, the party of freedom and personal choice, wants us to impose rights and non-rights in relation to sport. There are a lot of sports that I do not like and do not watch, but I will not interfere in the process.

The member for Roe made a link between combat sports and domestic violence; he better have some evidence to back that up. He stood up and made that link. He should tell that to the thousands of good Western Australians who are in the gyms training and abiding by the rules of their sport. There is an enormous range of combat sports. The Liberal and National Parties say that people should be able to carry a gun and do whatever they want with it, but somehow the government should interfere in combat sports.

The Leader of the Opposition said how dare we support two people conducting combat sports in a ring. That is boxing.

Mr Basil Zempilas: No.

Ms Rita Saffioti: Yes, you did. Twice you said how dare we support two people hitting each other in a ring. I am sorry, but that is boxing.

It was a Liberal government that banned mixed martial arts in an octagon. It banned it year upon year, and it did so because the then Premier did not like it. He said, "I don't like it so I'm going to ban it", against the advice of the Combat Sports Commission. As stated in an article:

Premier Colin Barnett reiterated his distaste for mixed martial arts in response to a new push to lift a ban keeping the Ultimate Fighting Championship out of WA.

WA is the only jurisdiction in the world where MMA is legal but the 'cage' or fence enclosure is not.

…

The State Government imposed the ban in March 2013 against the advice of its own combat sports commission, infuriating WA's MMA community …

The former state government banned the Ultimate Fighting Championship. I have to say that in gyms around Western Australia, in good places like Willagee and throughout the corridors, there are people who train in mixed martial arts. That is what they do. It is a discipline. Now, as I said, I am not a combat sports expert. Do I particularly like it? No. But it is not up to me to overrule the experts in the field.

The Leader of the Opposition came up and said that the community has said no. Elitist arguments are being run by the Liberal and National Parties, who have lost touch with people in the suburbs and in the regions. They do not believe in combat sports and motorsports. They are so far removed from normal people who go about their business every day. They are so far removed!

Several members interjected.

The Speaker: Members!

Ms Rita Saffioti: The first time I was asked this—I think it was on 19 or 22 June when I was talking about Milan and Perth Glory at the HBF Stadium—I really was not aware of the issue in a lot of detail. I received a briefing later that week. As I said, I am no expert in all things combat sports, but the Leader of the Opposition spoke about padding and this and that. Has the Leader of the Opposition watched UFC? Has he watched the elbows that go into people's heads? I am not an expert, and I find it difficult to differentiate. I stand by that. I am not there to be an expert. That is why we have an expert commission. The opposition's complete dismissal of the idea that the community—they do not know the community. They have not spoken to people in combat sports in the suburbs. They have not done that. They are completely elitist thumbing and their noses at normal people. The Australian Medical Association did not support UFC.

I know Jack Della Maddalena, who we should all be proud of, and we are. He started from a gym in Willetton and became a world welterweight champion, the first Western Australian ever to become a world champion. I see him with his family at the markets. He is a decent and incredible human being, and opposition members are standing here rubbishing the efforts of those who fight and represent our state. They are sitting there, insulting people in combat sports, because they are elitist. It is an elitist argument, as I said, against the suburbs and the gyms.

The AMA did not support mixed martial arts. Actually, I was out at the last UFC. I remember that I was in the foyer. I had my son with me, so I remember it clearly. The questioning of the day was about how the AMA had come out saying that we should ban UFC, but I defended our right to hold the UFC.

Do you know who else loved UFC? When the Young Liberals tried to be hip for one day, on 20 February 2023, plenty of big names came over in those couple of weeks—the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Harry Styles and UFC. That was the Liberal Party trying to be relevant for a day or two, but it absolutely did not last because then there was the elitist thumbing of noses. They have the idea that these people are somehow not people who we should be listening to or representing. I hate that type of elitist crap. I hate it! I will tell everyone that I hate elitist crap. I hate it when people thumb their noses at ordinary Western Australians who want to train in and play a sport. The Leader of the Opposition, a graduate from the Hale debating team—we know that is where he came from—might think that, but I hate it when people thumb their noses at ordinary people participating in sport.

I am no mixed martial arts expert and, as you can probably tell from my physique, I do not participate in it, but, you know what, it is a great pastime and sport for many Western Australians because of its discipline and effort and how it helps a lot with physical and mental health. I understand that you guys do not represent the suburbs or the regions and that you thumb your noses at motorsport. I mean, the argument—

Mr Basil Zempilas interjected.

Ms Rita Saffioti: The biggest issue for the Leader of the Opposition is the fact that they use sticky notes as part of the consultation for a Perth entertainment precinct. This is the level of argument we are getting.

Today, by way of interjection, the Leader of the Opposition mentioned how we should be proud of the stadium. I am proud of the stadium, but it was over nine holes of a golf course that he is now claiming was a wildlife sanctuary. The north is where the stadium was built, and the south was where we would put the sports and entertainment precinct. Do you remember? There was an 18-hole golf course, and half became the stadium. It was always planned that this would be an entertainment precinct. But again, they are thumbing their noses, even though I know they had some secret meetings to try to get a racetrack last year. I understand about those secret meetings, member. They are now thumbing their noses at a racetrack, even though we know that the Leader of the Opposition met with people about a racetrack. What about transparency?

Several members interjected.

The Speaker: Members! Member for Cockburn and member for Landsdale, that is enough! The minister is on her feet.

Ms Rita Saffioti: Who commissioned the polling would be the next question, of course. The process was that it was raised with me by the media. I sought a briefing. Then I let the Combat Sports Commission process take place. The opposition's arguments were all over the place: I should have intervened; I should not intervene. Did you intervene? I am sure you did not intervene. Did you intervene? I do not know what they were getting at. I am telling you, as I said, that I let the process take its course and the commission make its decision. That is what I did. On Facebook today the Leader of the Opposition shared the Ben Harvey piece that he said he could not possibly read out because it was so personally awful. Today he said that he could not possibly read those comments out, but he shared it on social media. All these people talk about decorum, morals and values.

Mr Basil Zempilas interjected.

The Speaker: Leader of the Opposition!

Ms Rita Saffioti: It was too disgusting for him to read out here, but he shared it around. Another point I really want to make is that he was talking about men and women, and the idea that somehow women should not be involved in combat sports. Again, it is a view from the 1960s that somehow women should not be involved in combat sports. Every week in gyms around the state, women are participating in combat sports. There are actual fight nights involving women. That is what happens. That is real life. I am sorry if it is offending his sensibilities.

Mr Basil Zempilas: Bare-knuckle boxing? Yes, it is.

Ms Rita Saffioti: It offends his sensibilities because he does not even understand women or care about them. That is why he shut down a women's shelter. Every week there are events. He said that they fight each other with bare hands until they knock each other out. That is incorrect. The issue of combat sports is one that has evolved over time. Mixed martial arts 20 or 30 years ago was not what it is today, with the evolution of combat sports, mixed martial arts, Muay Thai and the rise of all types of disciplines around the world. That is what happens.

Yes, these issues are confronting and they test us, but we have to have a process in place so we do not become a sort of moralistic preacher but listen to the advice of the experts. That is what I have done. As I said, I know members opposite are elitist. I know they do not reflect the suburbs or the regional towns. I know they are criticising motorsport and combat sport. The Leader of the Opposition does not believe that two people should be fighting each other in a ring, full stop. It appears he is opposed to boxing, now. We have people and positions, and that is what they do: they assess events. When I met with them I became aware that every week there will be an event that they have to analyse—the event itself, the card. They work closely with the police to make sure that everything is above board—that is what they do. There are dozens of events sanctioned each year. I do not go to them. Are they all my cup of tea? No. But do I have to intervene on everything that I might not really like? Is that where we are getting to? As I said, the Liberal and National Parties are thumbing their noses at people in the suburbs. I do not know who Liberal and Nationals members mix with, but when I mix with normal people, a lot of them come up to me and say that they support the concept of having this event. I will say that.

As I said, there is a process in relation to the minutes—I have not seen them—and what happened. I did not ring or interfere because, as I said, I respect the people we appoint and the process is there. There are dozens of events happening each year; I was surprised to see how many. They are in the suburbs, they are in the warehouses of Osborne Park and they are in the some of the underutilised ethnic clubs or multicultural clubs around the place. They are everywhere, and I am not going to intervene in them. As I said, members opposite thumb their noses at normal people; they do not respect what they like. They do not care about people in the suburbs or the regions. That is why they do not represent the people in the suburbs anymore. That is why they have basically gone to a rump of the former Liberal Party—because they do not actually understand the people in the suburbs and they thumb their noses at them. They disrespect them and they thumb their noses at them. Elitist crap—that is what it is, and I cannot stand it, because we represent the community. There are processes in place and, as I said, I respect the commission and the work it does.

Mr Paul Papalia (Secret Harbour—Minister for Emergency Services) (3:42 pm): It is a pleasure to rise in this debate. I want to immediately acknowledge the Minister for Sport and Recreation and Deputy Premier, and commend her for her integrity in following the process when making the determination around whether the bare-knuckle boxing event would be able to go ahead. Allowing it to be done at arm's distance by a body that was established for that purpose was absolutely the right thing to do, as opposed to what happened under the previous government. As the Deputy Premier indicated, we were there when the decision was made about whether a sport of any particular type was allowed into Western Australia. Actually, that is not true; it was not mixed martial arts that was banned, but actually the feature that makes mixed martial arts far safer than fighting in a boxing ring. The previous Liberal–National government chose to oppose one element and prevent the use of the Octagon in mixed martial arts—an element that actually makes it safer for fighters. As a consequence, that government thereby prevented Western Australia from ever getting a UFC event. That was that government's decision. It was actually the sole decision of one person, who was not in the Combat Sports Commission and who had no knowledge, no experience and no skill set with which to inform that decision, other than the fact that he just did not like it. That is something that is applauded by the current Leader of the Opposition and the ragtag group of people who sit to his right. Those people believe that they have the right to make decisions based purely on their own opinion and their own likes or dislikes.

That is something worth considering in this debate. Let me be very clear: I think that on occasion, presidents of the AMA are some of the most effective Liberal Party branch members in the state. The last two AMA presidents have vocally and aggressively opposed combat sports. They are not just opposed to bare-knuckle boxing; let us not pretend that that is the case. They do not pretend that. They are absolutely clear: they do not like combat sports. They oppose UFC, mixed martial arts, boxing and, I imagine, Taekwondo. I would assume that they oppose Muay Thai. The Leader of the Opposition might want to inform himself of this fact, but in WA, right around the country and right around the world, there are different levels of Muay Thai. It starts off with padding and gloves and it progresses up to where they are fighting like mixed martial artists with far less padding, but that is actually just the nature of the sport. It progresses up through skill sets until people engage in combat without padding. That is true also of mixed martial arts generally. Has the member seen the gloves that mixed martial artists use? They are not boxing gloves. I am sure that if he actually bothered to have a look at the gloves mixed martial artists wear, he would think they look like gardening gloves because they are not much different. They actually do not have padding like boxing gloves. The observation has been made by the chair of the Combat Sports Commission at different times and by doctors who are engaged in officiating or supporting combat sports around the state that people who engage in bare-knuckle boxing are actually far less likely to be exposed to damage as a consequence of being hit, because without the padding, they are going to hit less hard and they are going to sustain fewer hits than they would were they in a ring fighting someone with gloves on, because the gloves' padding enables boxers to hit harder without damaging their knuckles. That means that those matches last longer and there is longer exposure to blows to the head, where the damage that the member refers to might occur.

That aside, that is all fine. The observation I want to make is that the minister absolutely followed the process that should have been followed. We should not have it entirely in the hands of the Premier or in the hands of a Leader of the Opposition or a president of the AMA who does not like a particular activity. If the AMA chose to oppose everything that might hurt us, we would not be doing much in the way of sport. If they got their way in reducing exposure to risks associated with head collisions or injuries from being tackled in rugby or football, or heading a ball in soccer, there would not be many sports. If we chose to—

Mr Basil Zempilas interjected.

Mr Paul Papalia: I am just making an observation. If we chose to allow people who do not like particular sports to be the ones making the decisions, we would not have many sports. That aside, this is an opportunity. Because it is combat sports and boxing, it gave me pause for thought. The thing about combat sports is that participants often have a fight name. Talking about mixed martial arts and the UFC, Conor McGregor's name is "Notorious"; Jack Della Maddalena's name is "JDM". They are pretty obvious names; there is not much in the way of irony associated with them. There have, however, been other fighters in history who have employed irony with their fight names. There was a professional boxer called Kristian Laight who fought 291 times for 279 defeats and 12 wins, so they called him "Mr Reliable"! It is attractive to consider that there might be a bit of irony around naming boxers. If we were to do it in the chamber—we would never do it in the chamber—but if we were outside and considering a name for some of our colleagues, the member for Roe might be called "Pugnacious Pete"! I could see the member for Mid-West being called "Lightning Love"—the irony! It was tough to come up with one for the Leader of the Opposition because I was wondering how I could apply irony. I could potentially have called him "The Man". He would be like Anthony Mundine, but without the wins. "Blowhard Basil" might be an opportunity, but that is a bit direct; there is no irony.

Mr Basil Zempilas: What was it?

Mr Paul Papalia: "Blowhard". I was thinking of "Whispers" for the member for Nedlands. Ultimately, if I was to name the Leader of the Opposition, I would leave the irony in the closet. I notice that all the Nationals have gone home. Is it afternoon tea time?

Mr Basil Zempilas interjected.

Mr Paul Papalia: They are out there training.

Mr Basil Zempilas: Inaugural speeches.

Mr Paul Papalia: Inaugural speeches. Okay. I will give them a waiver.

Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that the appropriate name—

Several members interjected.

Mr Paul Papalia: I am going to have to end and provide my colleague with an opportunity to get up.

I think it should be "Glass Jaw". Let us face it, in the history of the Western Australian Parliament there have been very few people with a glass jaw quite the size of the Leader of the Opposition's.

Mr David Scaife (Cockburn—Parliamentary Secretary) (3:51 pm): I rise to finish this debate. I am very happy to speak against this motion and in support of the work done by the Deputy Premier; Minister for Sport and Recreation. One of the hallmarks of opposition members in this place, both in the last term and so far in this term, is that they do not do their homework. They have been pursuing this issue in the media for weeks now, but it can almost be guaranteed that the opposition has not done any research into the history of where this legislation and the regulations come from. The Combat Sports Act 1987 in its current form was amended by the Liberal–National government back in 2009. It might be a 1987 act, but the Liberal–National government changed everything in 2009 and created the Combat Sports Commission. It did not exist before that point.

Today we heard people saying that it is not their cup of tea, and that is true. A lot of things are not to people's taste. In fact, one only has to ask Hon "Tuck" Waldron, who introduced the amending bill in 2009, when he said:

… although these contests may not be to everyone's taste, this has required a response to ensure that participants in these types of contests are not exposed to unnecessary health and safety risks.

This legislation was amended and introduced by the Liberal and National Parties when they were last in government in response to two things: firstly, the rise in the prominence of new forms of combat sports, which is exactly what we are seeing with bare-knuckle boxing, and, secondly, to ensure that we gave adequate health and safety protections to people who participate in these sports. The opposition does not ever want to do the research. We know that the member for Churchlands is no student of history. I do not think he is a student of much. As the Deputy Premier said, he is a student of Hale. You can take the boy out of Hale but you cannot take the Hale out of the boy. I think we have seen that on full display today. We have the head boy and head girl sitting in the front row lecturing us all on morals and what our standards should be.

What the Deputy Premier said is absolutely right. We have members in this chamber on the opposition benches who, in their inaugural speeches, lionised the need for smaller government. I want to end on that. We had the member for Carine say, "I believe in smaller government and greater opportunity." The member for Nedlands said, "We faltered only when we turned away from these Liberal values, thinking that government knows better." That was a bit too quiet to be the member for Nedlands, but members get what he was saying. The truth is that opposition members want government to be just small enough to fit into people's lounge rooms. They want government to be just the right size. They do not want it to control guns, but they want it to be just the right size to fit into the lounge rooms of people in the suburbs and tell them what sports they can and cannot enjoy. That is the elitism that the Deputy Premier talked about. The opposition picks and chooses when it wants small government. It wants small government when it suits its morals and its preaching to family values, but the opposition does not like small government when it does not suit its agenda, and it stands condemned for that.

The Speaker: Thank you, member. That was a long hour! The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Division

Question put and a division taken with the following result:

Ayes, 13Noes, 44

Question thus negatived.