❓ Mr. Katsambanis questions the funding source for a potential $1 million reward in the Lisa Mott case. The Minister responds, defending the reward offer and criticising the politicisation of the issue, explaining the reward process and justification for the amount.
AnsweredQoN 689Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
LISA MOTT —
REWARD FOR INFORMATION
689. Mr
P.A. KATSAMBANIS to the Minister for Police:
I
refer to the story in The Sunday Times on Sunday, 13 September that
indicated a possible $1 million reward to solve the killing of Collie
schoolgirl Lisa Mott. Has the minister or the government offered to provide
this $1 million as additional money to the Western Australia Police Force, or
does she expect the police to find this money from their existing budget?
REWARD FOR INFORMATION
689. Mr
P.A. KATSAMBANIS to the Minister for Police:
I
refer to the story in The Sunday Times on Sunday, 13 September that
indicated a possible $1 million reward to solve the killing of Collie
schoolgirl Lisa Mott. Has the minister or the government offered to provide
this $1 million as additional money to the Western Australia Police Force, or
does she expect the police to find this money from their existing budget?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the
question. I find it very strange that he is trying to politicise this. It will
be dealt with in the same way that all rewards are. The member may not be aware
that rewards are often offered, but they are rarely given out. They are even
more rarely given out in full. Offering that money is about getting
intelligence. Generally, if there is additional spending out of the police budget,
that is something that the police go back to as part of the expenditure review
process. I think the member is attempting to count his chickens before they are
hatched. There is not a proposal to hand any money to anyone at this time.
We reviewed the rewards that were
being offered when we came into government. It was a complete hodgepodge. The
rewards for some people's loved ones who were missing and presumed
dead, and others who were dead were as little as $20 000. Some were $50 000,
some were $100 000 and others were $250 000. Parents and loved ones rightly
asked why there was a reward of only $20 000 or $50 000 for their daughter's
disappearance and presumed death or death.
In a couple of cases, there was no reward at all. Yet for others, there were rewards
of some $250 000. Members should try explaining to a mum or a dad who
has lost their child that there is a reward of $100 000 for one child and $250 000
for another child. That is why we regularised it. I think it was about two
years ago now that we pretty much immediately lifted most of those rewards to a
consistent $250 000. We looked at what had been done in Victoria, which has a maximum
reward of $1 million. Our cabinet considered whether we should propose a maximum
of $1 million for our rewards. Modelled largely on what was done in Victoria,
$1 million rewards are for when children go missing. Lisa Mott went missing a long
time ago, but her mum is still alive. On the off chance that somebody can come
forward with some information that will help resolve that case, my view is that
we should offer a reward and that it needs to be a life-changing amount of
money. People will not come forward otherwise. They might potentially risk
relationships or need to set themselves up with a new identity or a new life.
There might be reasons that they feel insecure. The sum of $1 million is a life-changing
amount of money for anyone. That is why we have put those rewards in place. We
want to elicit information from the community and give some comfort to those
loved ones. I think it is a pretty bizarre question to argue about which pot of
money that will come out of. If substantial reward money is called upon, of
course my agency and I will make a case to the Expenditure Review Committee and
it would consider that in light of the circumstances.
question. I find it very strange that he is trying to politicise this. It will
be dealt with in the same way that all rewards are. The member may not be aware
that rewards are often offered, but they are rarely given out. They are even
more rarely given out in full. Offering that money is about getting
intelligence. Generally, if there is additional spending out of the police budget,
that is something that the police go back to as part of the expenditure review
process. I think the member is attempting to count his chickens before they are
hatched. There is not a proposal to hand any money to anyone at this time.
We reviewed the rewards that were
being offered when we came into government. It was a complete hodgepodge. The
rewards for some people's loved ones who were missing and presumed
dead, and others who were dead were as little as $20 000. Some were $50 000,
some were $100 000 and others were $250 000. Parents and loved ones rightly
asked why there was a reward of only $20 000 or $50 000 for their daughter's
disappearance and presumed death or death.
In a couple of cases, there was no reward at all. Yet for others, there were rewards
of some $250 000. Members should try explaining to a mum or a dad who
has lost their child that there is a reward of $100 000 for one child and $250 000
for another child. That is why we regularised it. I think it was about two
years ago now that we pretty much immediately lifted most of those rewards to a
consistent $250 000. We looked at what had been done in Victoria, which has a maximum
reward of $1 million. Our cabinet considered whether we should propose a maximum
of $1 million for our rewards. Modelled largely on what was done in Victoria,
$1 million rewards are for when children go missing. Lisa Mott went missing a long
time ago, but her mum is still alive. On the off chance that somebody can come
forward with some information that will help resolve that case, my view is that
we should offer a reward and that it needs to be a life-changing amount of
money. People will not come forward otherwise. They might potentially risk
relationships or need to set themselves up with a new identity or a new life.
There might be reasons that they feel insecure. The sum of $1 million is a life-changing
amount of money for anyone. That is why we have put those rewards in place. We
want to elicit information from the community and give some comfort to those
loved ones. I think it is a pretty bizarre question to argue about which pot of
money that will come out of. If substantial reward money is called upon, of
course my agency and I will make a case to the Expenditure Review Committee and
it would consider that in light of the circumstances.
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.