❓ A parliamentary question is raised regarding the suicide and sudden deaths of state government employees engaged in mental health services since 2008. The Minister's response avoids providing specific data, citing concerns about the member's motives and potential criminal activity.
AnsweredQoN 464Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES — EMPLOYEE DEATHS
464. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Minister for Mental
Health:
(1) Since
2008, how many state government employees engaged in mental health services
have been determined to have committed suicide?
(2) Since 2008,
how many state government employees engaged in mental health services have died
suddenly but the cause of death is yet to be determined?
(3) Of the cases
in (1) and (2), at which mental health facilities were those employees working
at the time of their deaths?
(4) Has the
government undertaken a comprehensive review of suicide amongst mental health
workers; and, if not, why not; and will the government commit to such a review?
SERVICES — EMPLOYEE DEATHS
464. Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH to the Minister for Mental
Health:
(1) Since
2008, how many state government employees engaged in mental health services
have been determined to have committed suicide?
(2) Since 2008,
how many state government employees engaged in mental health services have died
suddenly but the cause of death is yet to be determined?
(3) Of the cases
in (1) and (2), at which mental health facilities were those employees working
at the time of their deaths?
(4) Has the
government undertaken a comprehensive review of suicide amongst mental health
workers; and, if not, why not; and will the government commit to such a review?
AnswerView source ↗
I was really surprised that this
question actually got asked. Previously I had been given a question around five
names of people who, over the last 10 years, had worked in mental health
services or who might have still been working in mental health services but had
family members who had died. The named question came to me around these sorts
of issues, as though this was some sort of information that was likely to be
provided by me to this member. It is really surprising. I can only say that
this is just a little further on from the attempt to create some shock in the
system that has been embarked upon over the last little while. It is a bit like
somebody who is becoming a bit addicted in some way to providing even more
shocking or trying to find —
Several members interjected.
The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister is obliged to
answer in a concise and relevant way the question that was asked.
Hon HELEN MORTON : Yes.
The PRESIDENT : Not some other question.
Hon HELEN MORTON : No, I understand, Mr President. I
am answering that question because there is very little that I can provide in
answering a question such as this without understanding that the revelation of
information that this member seeks on many occasions is attempting not only to
find something shocking, but also, as has happened on more than one occasion
already, to ask people to provide information that, in doing so, would be a
criminal offence. We know that this member has actually gone as far as
contacting staff working in hospitals to try to get this sort of information
from people, and I can only assume that the Corruption and Crime Commission is
involved in this—I do not know. But I just —
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Bring it on!
The PRESIDENT : Order!
Point of Order
Hon JON FORD : My first point of order, which I
was about to raise, was that the minister is somehow trying to pre-empt the
reasons the member has asked the question; that is just purely irrelevant and
subjective. The second one now is that she is trying to imply that, somehow,
the member is involved in criminal activity. None of those things is relevant,
and they are certainly out of order.
The PRESIDENT : I think there is a point of order. The minister needs to be relevant in
the answer that she is giving.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Hon HELEN MORTON : I will try to make this sound more
relevant, because I am struggling to understand how it is not possible to be
relevant when providing the information that this member has sought in a way
that is, to me, a criminal offence. It is also the case that I have absolutely clear information that she has sought information
directly from staff working in hospitals.
Several members interjected.
The PRESIDENT : Order! I think I can pre-empt the
point of order. If the minister is making her point in her answer that she has
some clear information, her responsibility is to bring that clear information to the house in the form of
an answer. Otherwise, complete your answer.
Hon HELEN MORTON : The answer is very, very simple.
(1)–(3)
The Department of Health does not record this information.
(4) No.
Several members interjected.
The PRESIDENT :
Order! I think I have said several times that the point at which I make a
judgement on whether a debate or comments across the chamber are out of order
is when they move away from the substance of an issue and into personal issues.
I think every member understands that and needs to consider that.
question actually got asked. Previously I had been given a question around five
names of people who, over the last 10 years, had worked in mental health
services or who might have still been working in mental health services but had
family members who had died. The named question came to me around these sorts
of issues, as though this was some sort of information that was likely to be
provided by me to this member. It is really surprising. I can only say that
this is just a little further on from the attempt to create some shock in the
system that has been embarked upon over the last little while. It is a bit like
somebody who is becoming a bit addicted in some way to providing even more
shocking or trying to find —
Several members interjected.
The PRESIDENT : Order! The minister is obliged to
answer in a concise and relevant way the question that was asked.
Hon HELEN MORTON : Yes.
The PRESIDENT : Not some other question.
Hon HELEN MORTON : No, I understand, Mr President. I
am answering that question because there is very little that I can provide in
answering a question such as this without understanding that the revelation of
information that this member seeks on many occasions is attempting not only to
find something shocking, but also, as has happened on more than one occasion
already, to ask people to provide information that, in doing so, would be a
criminal offence. We know that this member has actually gone as far as
contacting staff working in hospitals to try to get this sort of information
from people, and I can only assume that the Corruption and Crime Commission is
involved in this—I do not know. But I just —
Hon Ljiljanna Ravlich : Bring it on!
The PRESIDENT : Order!
Point of Order
Hon JON FORD : My first point of order, which I
was about to raise, was that the minister is somehow trying to pre-empt the
reasons the member has asked the question; that is just purely irrelevant and
subjective. The second one now is that she is trying to imply that, somehow,
the member is involved in criminal activity. None of those things is relevant,
and they are certainly out of order.
The PRESIDENT : I think there is a point of order. The minister needs to be relevant in
the answer that she is giving.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Hon HELEN MORTON : I will try to make this sound more
relevant, because I am struggling to understand how it is not possible to be
relevant when providing the information that this member has sought in a way
that is, to me, a criminal offence. It is also the case that I have absolutely clear information that she has sought information
directly from staff working in hospitals.
Several members interjected.
The PRESIDENT : Order! I think I can pre-empt the
point of order. If the minister is making her point in her answer that she has
some clear information, her responsibility is to bring that clear information to the house in the form of
an answer. Otherwise, complete your answer.
Hon HELEN MORTON : The answer is very, very simple.
(1)–(3)
The Department of Health does not record this information.
(4) No.
Several members interjected.
The PRESIDENT :
Order! I think I have said several times that the point at which I make a
judgement on whether a debate or comments across the chamber are out of order
is when they move away from the substance of an issue and into personal issues.
I think every member understands that and needs to consider that.
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.