❓ A parliamentary question regarding funding cuts to a mental health consumer advocacy program. The Minister declines to reinstate funding, arguing it prioritises advisory roles over clinical services.
AnsweredQoN 1184Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to Labor’s recent funding cuts to mental health services, specifically the reprioritising of projects under the Health Consumers’ Council of Western Australia at a cost of $105 000 a year. (1) Is the minister aware that the mental health consumer advocacy program, which included four consumer project officers and more than 200 customers who served on a range of decision-making forums and groups, was discontinued as a result of his cuts? (2) Will the minister guarantee the return of funding to ensure that the program will be reinstated? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) The answer to the member’s second question is no. That program can be viewed in two ways. These people were paid to sit on committees to advise the Government on policy; that is a proper description of the work done by them. That was the reason the money was expended. If the Government said that it would cut payments made to consultants who advised it on policy in any other area, it would be applauded by this Parliament. The second way in which this payment can be viewed is that it was part of the therapy and treatment of the mental health conditions of the people involved. The view taken in deciding to effect that cut was that the first description of their work was correct, in that clinical services were not being delivered to patients but people were being paid fees to sit on advisory committees to advise the Government on mental health policy. That was not a priority for government. Mr M.W. Trenorden: They also advise others. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is basically a payment to individuals to sit on committees to advise the Government on the policies and services that should be provided. That is how it is properly characterised. From time to time payments of this nature are made to a range of disadvantaged groups in the community. Generally speaking, those payments are criticised when they are made, particularly, for instance, to Aboriginal people. I appreciate that a different view can be taken of that program. Whichever view is taken, I do not regard it as such a priority that it should be maintained over the provision of enhanced cancer services, emergency department services and a range of other services.
(1) Is the minister aware that the mental health consumer advocacy program, which included four consumer project officers and more than 200 customers who served on a range of decision-making forums and groups, was discontinued as a result of his cuts? (2) Will the minister guarantee the return of funding to ensure that the program will be reinstated? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The answer to the member’s second question is no. That program can be viewed in two ways. These people were paid to sit on committees to advise the Government on policy; that is a proper description of the work done by them. That was the reason the money was expended. If the Government said that it would cut payments made to consultants who advised it on policy in any other area, it would be applauded by this Parliament. The second way in which this payment can be viewed is that it was part of the therapy and treatment of the mental health conditions of the people involved. The view taken in deciding to effect that cut was that the first description of their work was correct, in that clinical services were not being delivered to patients but people were being paid fees to sit on advisory committees to advise the Government on mental health policy. That was not a priority for government. Mr M.W. Trenorden: They also advise others. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is basically a payment to individuals to sit on committees to advise the Government on the policies and services that should be provided. That is how it is properly characterised. From time to time payments of this nature are made to a range of disadvantaged groups in the community. Generally speaking, those payments are criticised when they are made, particularly, for instance, to Aboriginal people. I appreciate that a different view can be taken of that program. Whichever view is taken, I do not regard it as such a priority that it should be maintained over the provision of enhanced cancer services, emergency department services and a range of other services.
(2) Will the minister guarantee the return of funding to ensure that the program will be reinstated? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The answer to the member’s second question is no. That program can be viewed in two ways. These people were paid to sit on committees to advise the Government on policy; that is a proper description of the work done by them. That was the reason the money was expended. If the Government said that it would cut payments made to consultants who advised it on policy in any other area, it would be applauded by this Parliament. The second way in which this payment can be viewed is that it was part of the therapy and treatment of the mental health conditions of the people involved. The view taken in deciding to effect that cut was that the first description of their work was correct, in that clinical services were not being delivered to patients but people were being paid fees to sit on advisory committees to advise the Government on mental health policy. That was not a priority for government. Mr M.W. Trenorden: They also advise others. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is basically a payment to individuals to sit on committees to advise the Government on the policies and services that should be provided. That is how it is properly characterised. From time to time payments of this nature are made to a range of disadvantaged groups in the community. Generally speaking, those payments are criticised when they are made, particularly, for instance, to Aboriginal people. I appreciate that a different view can be taken of that program. Whichever view is taken, I do not regard it as such a priority that it should be maintained over the provision of enhanced cancer services, emergency department services and a range of other services.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The answer to the member’s second question is no. That program can be viewed in two ways. These people were paid to sit on committees to advise the Government on policy; that is a proper description of the work done by them. That was the reason the money was expended. If the Government said that it would cut payments made to consultants who advised it on policy in any other area, it would be applauded by this Parliament. The second way in which this payment can be viewed is that it was part of the therapy and treatment of the mental health conditions of the people involved. The view taken in deciding to effect that cut was that the first description of their work was correct, in that clinical services were not being delivered to patients but people were being paid fees to sit on advisory committees to advise the Government on mental health policy. That was not a priority for government. Mr M.W. Trenorden: They also advise others. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is basically a payment to individuals to sit on committees to advise the Government on the policies and services that should be provided. That is how it is properly characterised. From time to time payments of this nature are made to a range of disadvantaged groups in the community. Generally speaking, those payments are criticised when they are made, particularly, for instance, to Aboriginal people. I appreciate that a different view can be taken of that program. Whichever view is taken, I do not regard it as such a priority that it should be maintained over the provision of enhanced cancer services, emergency department services and a range of other services.
(1)-(2) The answer to the member’s second question is no. That program can be viewed in two ways. These people were paid to sit on committees to advise the Government on policy; that is a proper description of the work done by them. That was the reason the money was expended. If the Government said that it would cut payments made to consultants who advised it on policy in any other area, it would be applauded by this Parliament. The second way in which this payment can be viewed is that it was part of the therapy and treatment of the mental health conditions of the people involved. The view taken in deciding to effect that cut was that the first description of their work was correct, in that clinical services were not being delivered to patients but people were being paid fees to sit on advisory committees to advise the Government on mental health policy. That was not a priority for government. Mr M.W. Trenorden: They also advise others. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is basically a payment to individuals to sit on committees to advise the Government on the policies and services that should be provided. That is how it is properly characterised. From time to time payments of this nature are made to a range of disadvantaged groups in the community. Generally speaking, those payments are criticised when they are made, particularly, for instance, to Aboriginal people. I appreciate that a different view can be taken of that program. Whichever view is taken, I do not regard it as such a priority that it should be maintained over the provision of enhanced cancer services, emergency department services and a range of other services.
Mr M.W. Trenorden: They also advise others. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is basically a payment to individuals to sit on committees to advise the Government on the policies and services that should be provided. That is how it is properly characterised. From time to time payments of this nature are made to a range of disadvantaged groups in the community. Generally speaking, those payments are criticised when they are made, particularly, for instance, to Aboriginal people. I appreciate that a different view can be taken of that program. Whichever view is taken, I do not regard it as such a priority that it should be maintained over the provision of enhanced cancer services, emergency department services and a range of other services.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is basically a payment to individuals to sit on committees to advise the Government on the policies and services that should be provided. That is how it is properly characterised. From time to time payments of this nature are made to a range of disadvantaged groups in the community. Generally speaking, those payments are criticised when they are made, particularly, for instance, to Aboriginal people. I appreciate that a different view can be taken of that program. Whichever view is taken, I do not regard it as such a priority that it should be maintained over the provision of enhanced cancer services, emergency department services and a range of other services.
(1) Is the minister aware that the mental health consumer advocacy program, which included four consumer project officers and more than 200 customers who served on a range of decision-making forums and groups, was discontinued as a result of his cuts? (2) Will the minister guarantee the return of funding to ensure that the program will be reinstated? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The answer to the member’s second question is no. That program can be viewed in two ways. These people were paid to sit on committees to advise the Government on policy; that is a proper description of the work done by them. That was the reason the money was expended. If the Government said that it would cut payments made to consultants who advised it on policy in any other area, it would be applauded by this Parliament. The second way in which this payment can be viewed is that it was part of the therapy and treatment of the mental health conditions of the people involved. The view taken in deciding to effect that cut was that the first description of their work was correct, in that clinical services were not being delivered to patients but people were being paid fees to sit on advisory committees to advise the Government on mental health policy. That was not a priority for government. Mr M.W. Trenorden: They also advise others. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is basically a payment to individuals to sit on committees to advise the Government on the policies and services that should be provided. That is how it is properly characterised. From time to time payments of this nature are made to a range of disadvantaged groups in the community. Generally speaking, those payments are criticised when they are made, particularly, for instance, to Aboriginal people. I appreciate that a different view can be taken of that program. Whichever view is taken, I do not regard it as such a priority that it should be maintained over the provision of enhanced cancer services, emergency department services and a range of other services.
(2) Will the minister guarantee the return of funding to ensure that the program will be reinstated? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The answer to the member’s second question is no. That program can be viewed in two ways. These people were paid to sit on committees to advise the Government on policy; that is a proper description of the work done by them. That was the reason the money was expended. If the Government said that it would cut payments made to consultants who advised it on policy in any other area, it would be applauded by this Parliament. The second way in which this payment can be viewed is that it was part of the therapy and treatment of the mental health conditions of the people involved. The view taken in deciding to effect that cut was that the first description of their work was correct, in that clinical services were not being delivered to patients but people were being paid fees to sit on advisory committees to advise the Government on mental health policy. That was not a priority for government. Mr M.W. Trenorden: They also advise others. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is basically a payment to individuals to sit on committees to advise the Government on the policies and services that should be provided. That is how it is properly characterised. From time to time payments of this nature are made to a range of disadvantaged groups in the community. Generally speaking, those payments are criticised when they are made, particularly, for instance, to Aboriginal people. I appreciate that a different view can be taken of that program. Whichever view is taken, I do not regard it as such a priority that it should be maintained over the provision of enhanced cancer services, emergency department services and a range of other services.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) The answer to the member’s second question is no. That program can be viewed in two ways. These people were paid to sit on committees to advise the Government on policy; that is a proper description of the work done by them. That was the reason the money was expended. If the Government said that it would cut payments made to consultants who advised it on policy in any other area, it would be applauded by this Parliament. The second way in which this payment can be viewed is that it was part of the therapy and treatment of the mental health conditions of the people involved. The view taken in deciding to effect that cut was that the first description of their work was correct, in that clinical services were not being delivered to patients but people were being paid fees to sit on advisory committees to advise the Government on mental health policy. That was not a priority for government. Mr M.W. Trenorden: They also advise others. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is basically a payment to individuals to sit on committees to advise the Government on the policies and services that should be provided. That is how it is properly characterised. From time to time payments of this nature are made to a range of disadvantaged groups in the community. Generally speaking, those payments are criticised when they are made, particularly, for instance, to Aboriginal people. I appreciate that a different view can be taken of that program. Whichever view is taken, I do not regard it as such a priority that it should be maintained over the provision of enhanced cancer services, emergency department services and a range of other services.
(1)-(2) The answer to the member’s second question is no. That program can be viewed in two ways. These people were paid to sit on committees to advise the Government on policy; that is a proper description of the work done by them. That was the reason the money was expended. If the Government said that it would cut payments made to consultants who advised it on policy in any other area, it would be applauded by this Parliament. The second way in which this payment can be viewed is that it was part of the therapy and treatment of the mental health conditions of the people involved. The view taken in deciding to effect that cut was that the first description of their work was correct, in that clinical services were not being delivered to patients but people were being paid fees to sit on advisory committees to advise the Government on mental health policy. That was not a priority for government. Mr M.W. Trenorden: They also advise others. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is basically a payment to individuals to sit on committees to advise the Government on the policies and services that should be provided. That is how it is properly characterised. From time to time payments of this nature are made to a range of disadvantaged groups in the community. Generally speaking, those payments are criticised when they are made, particularly, for instance, to Aboriginal people. I appreciate that a different view can be taken of that program. Whichever view is taken, I do not regard it as such a priority that it should be maintained over the provision of enhanced cancer services, emergency department services and a range of other services.
Mr M.W. Trenorden: They also advise others. Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is basically a payment to individuals to sit on committees to advise the Government on the policies and services that should be provided. That is how it is properly characterised. From time to time payments of this nature are made to a range of disadvantaged groups in the community. Generally speaking, those payments are criticised when they are made, particularly, for instance, to Aboriginal people. I appreciate that a different view can be taken of that program. Whichever view is taken, I do not regard it as such a priority that it should be maintained over the provision of enhanced cancer services, emergency department services and a range of other services.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: It is basically a payment to individuals to sit on committees to advise the Government on the policies and services that should be provided. That is how it is properly characterised. From time to time payments of this nature are made to a range of disadvantaged groups in the community. Generally speaking, those payments are criticised when they are made, particularly, for instance, to Aboriginal people. I appreciate that a different view can be taken of that program. Whichever view is taken, I do not regard it as such a priority that it should be maintained over the provision of enhanced cancer services, emergency department services and a range of other services.
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.