❓ Minister McSweeney clarifies Redress WA scheme changes for terminally ill applicants and addresses concerns raised about departmental correspondence, defending a public servant's actions and criticising the previous government's policy.
AnsweredQoN 963Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
REDRESS WA — ARRANGEMENTS FOR TERMINALLY ILL APPLICANTS
I refer to the Redress WA scheme. Can the minister advise the house what has been put in place for Redress WA applicants who are terminally ill or who passed away during the assessment period of their application? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY
I refer to the Redress WA scheme. Can the minister advise the house what has been put in place for Redress WA applicants who are terminally ill or who passed away during the assessment period of their application? Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Nick Goiran for the question. He has a special interest in Redress WA. When the guidelines for Redress WA were developed, it was able to pay an interim payment to an applicant if the applicant could provide medical evidence that he had a terminal illness. Unfortunately, under the former government’s guidelines, if an applicant passed away suddenly while the application was being assessed, the estate would receive no payment whatsoever and the applicant’s file was closed. This appeared unfair and rather harsh to me, so I had the guidelines amended to allow eligibility payments of $5 000 to be made to the estate of the deceased applicant. I also ensured that the balance would be paid to the estate of applicants who had received an interim payment of less than the eligibility payment. I read the comments that Hon Sue Ellery made in the adjournment debate last night. I note that the member is out of the chamber on urgent parliamentary business. I noted what she said last night and I acted very promptly to omit the incorrect sentence in the last line of the letter that the member mentioned regarding the departmental correspondence. I was absolutely horrified when I read what Hon Sue Ellery said in the adjournment debate. She said — The letter she got today is signed by Stephanie Withers, Executive Director of Redress WA. In her letter, Ms Withers sets out the answer to the questions that I asked today, confirming that because he had received a $2 000 interim payment, it would have been better for him to die and let his family claim $5 000. Stephanie Withers is a public servant and she does a very good job. Redress WA is very difficult to deal with. I wondered whether Stephanie Withers would have said that and I did not think that she would have. Point of Order Hon JON FORD : This is not an answer to a question; it is either a ministerial statement or a personal explanation. The minister is also debating comments that the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday while the Leader of the Opposition is away from the chamber on urgent parliamentary business. The PRESIDENT : I will listen to the answer very carefully for another minute or so. I hope that the minister is getting to the point. Otherwise, I would suggest that a more appropriate forum in which to make those sorts of remarks might be a ministerial statement or during the adjournment debate. I will listen very carefully to whether the minister is getting to the point. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY : The third paragraph of the letter that I got this morning states — With reference to eligibility payments, where an applicant who has received an interim payment of less than $5 000 dies, Redress will make a further eligibility payment to increase the amount up to this point. That is rather different from what the Leader of the Opposition said in the adjournment debate. If that is the case, Stephanie Withers, who is a public servant, is owed an apology.
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank Hon Nick Goiran for the question. He has a special interest in Redress WA. When the guidelines for Redress WA were developed, it was able to pay an interim payment to an applicant if the applicant could provide medical evidence that he had a terminal illness. Unfortunately, under the former government’s guidelines, if an applicant passed away suddenly while the application was being assessed, the estate would receive no payment whatsoever and the applicant’s file was closed. This appeared unfair and rather harsh to me, so I had the guidelines amended to allow eligibility payments of $5 000 to be made to the estate of the deceased applicant. I also ensured that the balance would be paid to the estate of applicants who had received an interim payment of less than the eligibility payment. I read the comments that Hon Sue Ellery made in the adjournment debate last night. I note that the member is out of the chamber on urgent parliamentary business. I noted what she said last night and I acted very promptly to omit the incorrect sentence in the last line of the letter that the member mentioned regarding the departmental correspondence. I was absolutely horrified when I read what Hon Sue Ellery said in the adjournment debate. She said — The letter she got today is signed by Stephanie Withers, Executive Director of Redress WA. In her letter, Ms Withers sets out the answer to the questions that I asked today, confirming that because he had received a $2 000 interim payment, it would have been better for him to die and let his family claim $5 000. Stephanie Withers is a public servant and she does a very good job. Redress WA is very difficult to deal with. I wondered whether Stephanie Withers would have said that and I did not think that she would have. Point of Order Hon JON FORD : This is not an answer to a question; it is either a ministerial statement or a personal explanation. The minister is also debating comments that the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday while the Leader of the Opposition is away from the chamber on urgent parliamentary business. The PRESIDENT : I will listen to the answer very carefully for another minute or so. I hope that the minister is getting to the point. Otherwise, I would suggest that a more appropriate forum in which to make those sorts of remarks might be a ministerial statement or during the adjournment debate. I will listen very carefully to whether the minister is getting to the point. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY : The third paragraph of the letter that I got this morning states — With reference to eligibility payments, where an applicant who has received an interim payment of less than $5 000 dies, Redress will make a further eligibility payment to increase the amount up to this point. That is rather different from what the Leader of the Opposition said in the adjournment debate. If that is the case, Stephanie Withers, who is a public servant, is owed an apology.
I thank Hon Nick Goiran for the question. He has a special interest in Redress WA. When the guidelines for Redress WA were developed, it was able to pay an interim payment to an applicant if the applicant could provide medical evidence that he had a terminal illness. Unfortunately, under the former government’s guidelines, if an applicant passed away suddenly while the application was being assessed, the estate would receive no payment whatsoever and the applicant’s file was closed. This appeared unfair and rather harsh to me, so I had the guidelines amended to allow eligibility payments of $5 000 to be made to the estate of the deceased applicant. I also ensured that the balance would be paid to the estate of applicants who had received an interim payment of less than the eligibility payment. I read the comments that Hon Sue Ellery made in the adjournment debate last night. I note that the member is out of the chamber on urgent parliamentary business. I noted what she said last night and I acted very promptly to omit the incorrect sentence in the last line of the letter that the member mentioned regarding the departmental correspondence. I was absolutely horrified when I read what Hon Sue Ellery said in the adjournment debate. She said — The letter she got today is signed by Stephanie Withers, Executive Director of Redress WA. In her letter, Ms Withers sets out the answer to the questions that I asked today, confirming that because he had received a $2 000 interim payment, it would have been better for him to die and let his family claim $5 000. Stephanie Withers is a public servant and she does a very good job. Redress WA is very difficult to deal with. I wondered whether Stephanie Withers would have said that and I did not think that she would have. Point of Order Hon JON FORD : This is not an answer to a question; it is either a ministerial statement or a personal explanation. The minister is also debating comments that the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday while the Leader of the Opposition is away from the chamber on urgent parliamentary business. The PRESIDENT : I will listen to the answer very carefully for another minute or so. I hope that the minister is getting to the point. Otherwise, I would suggest that a more appropriate forum in which to make those sorts of remarks might be a ministerial statement or during the adjournment debate. I will listen very carefully to whether the minister is getting to the point. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY : The third paragraph of the letter that I got this morning states — With reference to eligibility payments, where an applicant who has received an interim payment of less than $5 000 dies, Redress will make a further eligibility payment to increase the amount up to this point. That is rather different from what the Leader of the Opposition said in the adjournment debate. If that is the case, Stephanie Withers, who is a public servant, is owed an apology.
I read the comments that Hon Sue Ellery made in the adjournment debate last night. I note that the member is out of the chamber on urgent parliamentary business. I noted what she said last night and I acted very promptly to omit the incorrect sentence in the last line of the letter that the member mentioned regarding the departmental correspondence. I was absolutely horrified when I read what Hon Sue Ellery said in the adjournment debate. She said — The letter she got today is signed by Stephanie Withers, Executive Director of Redress WA. In her letter, Ms Withers sets out the answer to the questions that I asked today, confirming that because he had received a $2 000 interim payment, it would have been better for him to die and let his family claim $5 000. Stephanie Withers is a public servant and she does a very good job. Redress WA is very difficult to deal with. I wondered whether Stephanie Withers would have said that and I did not think that she would have. Point of Order Hon JON FORD : This is not an answer to a question; it is either a ministerial statement or a personal explanation. The minister is also debating comments that the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday while the Leader of the Opposition is away from the chamber on urgent parliamentary business. The PRESIDENT : I will listen to the answer very carefully for another minute or so. I hope that the minister is getting to the point. Otherwise, I would suggest that a more appropriate forum in which to make those sorts of remarks might be a ministerial statement or during the adjournment debate. I will listen very carefully to whether the minister is getting to the point. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY : The third paragraph of the letter that I got this morning states — With reference to eligibility payments, where an applicant who has received an interim payment of less than $5 000 dies, Redress will make a further eligibility payment to increase the amount up to this point. That is rather different from what the Leader of the Opposition said in the adjournment debate. If that is the case, Stephanie Withers, who is a public servant, is owed an apology.
The PRESIDENT : I will listen to the answer very carefully for another minute or so. I hope that the minister is getting to the point. Otherwise, I would suggest that a more appropriate forum in which to make those sorts of remarks might be a ministerial statement or during the adjournment debate. I will listen very carefully to whether the minister is getting to the point. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY : The third paragraph of the letter that I got this morning states — With reference to eligibility payments, where an applicant who has received an interim payment of less than $5 000 dies, Redress will make a further eligibility payment to increase the amount up to this point. That is rather different from what the Leader of the Opposition said in the adjournment debate. If that is the case, Stephanie Withers, who is a public servant, is owed an apology.
Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY replied: I thank Hon Nick Goiran for the question. He has a special interest in Redress WA. When the guidelines for Redress WA were developed, it was able to pay an interim payment to an applicant if the applicant could provide medical evidence that he had a terminal illness. Unfortunately, under the former government’s guidelines, if an applicant passed away suddenly while the application was being assessed, the estate would receive no payment whatsoever and the applicant’s file was closed. This appeared unfair and rather harsh to me, so I had the guidelines amended to allow eligibility payments of $5 000 to be made to the estate of the deceased applicant. I also ensured that the balance would be paid to the estate of applicants who had received an interim payment of less than the eligibility payment. I read the comments that Hon Sue Ellery made in the adjournment debate last night. I note that the member is out of the chamber on urgent parliamentary business. I noted what she said last night and I acted very promptly to omit the incorrect sentence in the last line of the letter that the member mentioned regarding the departmental correspondence. I was absolutely horrified when I read what Hon Sue Ellery said in the adjournment debate. She said — The letter she got today is signed by Stephanie Withers, Executive Director of Redress WA. In her letter, Ms Withers sets out the answer to the questions that I asked today, confirming that because he had received a $2 000 interim payment, it would have been better for him to die and let his family claim $5 000. Stephanie Withers is a public servant and she does a very good job. Redress WA is very difficult to deal with. I wondered whether Stephanie Withers would have said that and I did not think that she would have. Point of Order Hon JON FORD : This is not an answer to a question; it is either a ministerial statement or a personal explanation. The minister is also debating comments that the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday while the Leader of the Opposition is away from the chamber on urgent parliamentary business. The PRESIDENT : I will listen to the answer very carefully for another minute or so. I hope that the minister is getting to the point. Otherwise, I would suggest that a more appropriate forum in which to make those sorts of remarks might be a ministerial statement or during the adjournment debate. I will listen very carefully to whether the minister is getting to the point. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY : The third paragraph of the letter that I got this morning states — With reference to eligibility payments, where an applicant who has received an interim payment of less than $5 000 dies, Redress will make a further eligibility payment to increase the amount up to this point. That is rather different from what the Leader of the Opposition said in the adjournment debate. If that is the case, Stephanie Withers, who is a public servant, is owed an apology.
I thank Hon Nick Goiran for the question. He has a special interest in Redress WA. When the guidelines for Redress WA were developed, it was able to pay an interim payment to an applicant if the applicant could provide medical evidence that he had a terminal illness. Unfortunately, under the former government’s guidelines, if an applicant passed away suddenly while the application was being assessed, the estate would receive no payment whatsoever and the applicant’s file was closed. This appeared unfair and rather harsh to me, so I had the guidelines amended to allow eligibility payments of $5 000 to be made to the estate of the deceased applicant. I also ensured that the balance would be paid to the estate of applicants who had received an interim payment of less than the eligibility payment. I read the comments that Hon Sue Ellery made in the adjournment debate last night. I note that the member is out of the chamber on urgent parliamentary business. I noted what she said last night and I acted very promptly to omit the incorrect sentence in the last line of the letter that the member mentioned regarding the departmental correspondence. I was absolutely horrified when I read what Hon Sue Ellery said in the adjournment debate. She said — The letter she got today is signed by Stephanie Withers, Executive Director of Redress WA. In her letter, Ms Withers sets out the answer to the questions that I asked today, confirming that because he had received a $2 000 interim payment, it would have been better for him to die and let his family claim $5 000. Stephanie Withers is a public servant and she does a very good job. Redress WA is very difficult to deal with. I wondered whether Stephanie Withers would have said that and I did not think that she would have. Point of Order Hon JON FORD : This is not an answer to a question; it is either a ministerial statement or a personal explanation. The minister is also debating comments that the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday while the Leader of the Opposition is away from the chamber on urgent parliamentary business. The PRESIDENT : I will listen to the answer very carefully for another minute or so. I hope that the minister is getting to the point. Otherwise, I would suggest that a more appropriate forum in which to make those sorts of remarks might be a ministerial statement or during the adjournment debate. I will listen very carefully to whether the minister is getting to the point. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY : The third paragraph of the letter that I got this morning states — With reference to eligibility payments, where an applicant who has received an interim payment of less than $5 000 dies, Redress will make a further eligibility payment to increase the amount up to this point. That is rather different from what the Leader of the Opposition said in the adjournment debate. If that is the case, Stephanie Withers, who is a public servant, is owed an apology.
I read the comments that Hon Sue Ellery made in the adjournment debate last night. I note that the member is out of the chamber on urgent parliamentary business. I noted what she said last night and I acted very promptly to omit the incorrect sentence in the last line of the letter that the member mentioned regarding the departmental correspondence. I was absolutely horrified when I read what Hon Sue Ellery said in the adjournment debate. She said — The letter she got today is signed by Stephanie Withers, Executive Director of Redress WA. In her letter, Ms Withers sets out the answer to the questions that I asked today, confirming that because he had received a $2 000 interim payment, it would have been better for him to die and let his family claim $5 000. Stephanie Withers is a public servant and she does a very good job. Redress WA is very difficult to deal with. I wondered whether Stephanie Withers would have said that and I did not think that she would have. Point of Order Hon JON FORD : This is not an answer to a question; it is either a ministerial statement or a personal explanation. The minister is also debating comments that the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday while the Leader of the Opposition is away from the chamber on urgent parliamentary business. The PRESIDENT : I will listen to the answer very carefully for another minute or so. I hope that the minister is getting to the point. Otherwise, I would suggest that a more appropriate forum in which to make those sorts of remarks might be a ministerial statement or during the adjournment debate. I will listen very carefully to whether the minister is getting to the point. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY : The third paragraph of the letter that I got this morning states — With reference to eligibility payments, where an applicant who has received an interim payment of less than $5 000 dies, Redress will make a further eligibility payment to increase the amount up to this point. That is rather different from what the Leader of the Opposition said in the adjournment debate. If that is the case, Stephanie Withers, who is a public servant, is owed an apology.
The PRESIDENT : I will listen to the answer very carefully for another minute or so. I hope that the minister is getting to the point. Otherwise, I would suggest that a more appropriate forum in which to make those sorts of remarks might be a ministerial statement or during the adjournment debate. I will listen very carefully to whether the minister is getting to the point. Questions without Notice Resumed Hon ROBYN McSWEENEY : The third paragraph of the letter that I got this morning states — With reference to eligibility payments, where an applicant who has received an interim payment of less than $5 000 dies, Redress will make a further eligibility payment to increase the amount up to this point. That is rather different from what the Leader of the Opposition said in the adjournment debate. If that is the case, Stephanie Withers, who is a public servant, is owed an apology.
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.