❓ Opposition questions the Health Minister about payments made to Dr. Neale Fong upon his resignation, focusing on the terms of his contract and whether the Minister will refund the money. The Minister deflects, citing the contract's public availability and accusing the questioner of misleading statements.
AnsweredQoN 37Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
DR NEALE FONG — PAYOUT 37. Dr K.D. HAMES to the Minister for Health: To our part-time health minister, I refer to reports of a re-establishment fee and in lieu of notice — Mr M. McGowan : Are you part-time too? Dr K.D. HAMES : I am in opposition. There is a big difference between being a minister and being in my position. Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I call on you to give the member the opportunity to ask his question in silence, which is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : That is a little rich, given the level of interjections that have occurred this afternoon; however, I will say two things. When the member for Dawesville is asking a question, he should not be led into the old trick of answering interjections; if he is not, he may get through the question. To members on my right-hand side, the common decency of allowing members to actually ask a question would be appreciated. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : I will start again. To our part-time health minister — Point of Order Mr A.D. McRAE : Mr Speaker, that is the third time I have heard opposition members address ministers incorrectly, and I ask that you direct them to use the appropriate title. Dr K.D. HAMES : Further to that point of order, I said that my question was to the Minister for Health. “The part-time health minister” is part of the question. The SPEAKER : It is further semantics or an attempt at being clever at semantics. I think it fails. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : To our part-time health minister, I refer to reports of a re-establishment fee and a fee in lieu of notice paid to Dr Neale Fong. (1) Under the terms of the contract that the minister negotiated and signed off on to make Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia, would Dr Fong have received the $43 000 re-establishment payment if the minister had sacked him? (2) Which specific clause in the contract allowed Dr Fong to also be paid $43 000 in lieu of notice when he resigned in disgrace? (3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
DR NEALE FONG — PAYOUT
To our part-time health minister, I refer to reports of a re-establishment fee and in lieu of notice — Mr M. McGowan : Are you part-time too? Dr K.D. HAMES : I am in opposition. There is a big difference between being a minister and being in my position. Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I call on you to give the member the opportunity to ask his question in silence, which is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : That is a little rich, given the level of interjections that have occurred this afternoon; however, I will say two things. When the member for Dawesville is asking a question, he should not be led into the old trick of answering interjections; if he is not, he may get through the question. To members on my right-hand side, the common decency of allowing members to actually ask a question would be appreciated. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : I will start again. To our part-time health minister — Point of Order Mr A.D. McRAE : Mr Speaker, that is the third time I have heard opposition members address ministers incorrectly, and I ask that you direct them to use the appropriate title. Dr K.D. HAMES : Further to that point of order, I said that my question was to the Minister for Health. “The part-time health minister” is part of the question. The SPEAKER : It is further semantics or an attempt at being clever at semantics. I think it fails. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : To our part-time health minister, I refer to reports of a re-establishment fee and a fee in lieu of notice paid to Dr Neale Fong. (1) Under the terms of the contract that the minister negotiated and signed off on to make Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia, would Dr Fong have received the $43 000 re-establishment payment if the minister had sacked him? (2) Which specific clause in the contract allowed Dr Fong to also be paid $43 000 in lieu of notice when he resigned in disgrace? (3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
Mr M. McGowan : Are you part-time too? Dr K.D. HAMES : I am in opposition. There is a big difference between being a minister and being in my position. Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I call on you to give the member the opportunity to ask his question in silence, which is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : That is a little rich, given the level of interjections that have occurred this afternoon; however, I will say two things. When the member for Dawesville is asking a question, he should not be led into the old trick of answering interjections; if he is not, he may get through the question. To members on my right-hand side, the common decency of allowing members to actually ask a question would be appreciated. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : I will start again. To our part-time health minister — Point of Order Mr A.D. McRAE : Mr Speaker, that is the third time I have heard opposition members address ministers incorrectly, and I ask that you direct them to use the appropriate title. Dr K.D. HAMES : Further to that point of order, I said that my question was to the Minister for Health. “The part-time health minister” is part of the question. The SPEAKER : It is further semantics or an attempt at being clever at semantics. I think it fails. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : To our part-time health minister, I refer to reports of a re-establishment fee and a fee in lieu of notice paid to Dr Neale Fong. (1) Under the terms of the contract that the minister negotiated and signed off on to make Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia, would Dr Fong have received the $43 000 re-establishment payment if the minister had sacked him? (2) Which specific clause in the contract allowed Dr Fong to also be paid $43 000 in lieu of notice when he resigned in disgrace? (3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
Dr K.D. HAMES : I am in opposition. There is a big difference between being a minister and being in my position. Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I call on you to give the member the opportunity to ask his question in silence, which is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : That is a little rich, given the level of interjections that have occurred this afternoon; however, I will say two things. When the member for Dawesville is asking a question, he should not be led into the old trick of answering interjections; if he is not, he may get through the question. To members on my right-hand side, the common decency of allowing members to actually ask a question would be appreciated. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : I will start again. To our part-time health minister — Point of Order Mr A.D. McRAE : Mr Speaker, that is the third time I have heard opposition members address ministers incorrectly, and I ask that you direct them to use the appropriate title. Dr K.D. HAMES : Further to that point of order, I said that my question was to the Minister for Health. “The part-time health minister” is part of the question. The SPEAKER : It is further semantics or an attempt at being clever at semantics. I think it fails. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : To our part-time health minister, I refer to reports of a re-establishment fee and a fee in lieu of notice paid to Dr Neale Fong. (1) Under the terms of the contract that the minister negotiated and signed off on to make Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia, would Dr Fong have received the $43 000 re-establishment payment if the minister had sacked him? (2) Which specific clause in the contract allowed Dr Fong to also be paid $43 000 in lieu of notice when he resigned in disgrace? (3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
The SPEAKER : That is a little rich, given the level of interjections that have occurred this afternoon; however, I will say two things. When the member for Dawesville is asking a question, he should not be led into the old trick of answering interjections; if he is not, he may get through the question. To members on my right-hand side, the common decency of allowing members to actually ask a question would be appreciated. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : I will start again. To our part-time health minister — Point of Order Mr A.D. McRAE : Mr Speaker, that is the third time I have heard opposition members address ministers incorrectly, and I ask that you direct them to use the appropriate title. Dr K.D. HAMES : Further to that point of order, I said that my question was to the Minister for Health. “The part-time health minister” is part of the question. The SPEAKER : It is further semantics or an attempt at being clever at semantics. I think it fails. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : To our part-time health minister, I refer to reports of a re-establishment fee and a fee in lieu of notice paid to Dr Neale Fong. (1) Under the terms of the contract that the minister negotiated and signed off on to make Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia, would Dr Fong have received the $43 000 re-establishment payment if the minister had sacked him? (2) Which specific clause in the contract allowed Dr Fong to also be paid $43 000 in lieu of notice when he resigned in disgrace? (3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
Dr K.D. HAMES : Further to that point of order, I said that my question was to the Minister for Health. “The part-time health minister” is part of the question. The SPEAKER : It is further semantics or an attempt at being clever at semantics. I think it fails. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : To our part-time health minister, I refer to reports of a re-establishment fee and a fee in lieu of notice paid to Dr Neale Fong. (1) Under the terms of the contract that the minister negotiated and signed off on to make Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia, would Dr Fong have received the $43 000 re-establishment payment if the minister had sacked him? (2) Which specific clause in the contract allowed Dr Fong to also be paid $43 000 in lieu of notice when he resigned in disgrace? (3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
The SPEAKER : It is further semantics or an attempt at being clever at semantics. I think it fails. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : To our part-time health minister, I refer to reports of a re-establishment fee and a fee in lieu of notice paid to Dr Neale Fong. (1) Under the terms of the contract that the minister negotiated and signed off on to make Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia, would Dr Fong have received the $43 000 re-establishment payment if the minister had sacked him? (2) Which specific clause in the contract allowed Dr Fong to also be paid $43 000 in lieu of notice when he resigned in disgrace? (3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
(1) Under the terms of the contract that the minister negotiated and signed off on to make Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia, would Dr Fong have received the $43 000 re-establishment payment if the minister had sacked him? (2) Which specific clause in the contract allowed Dr Fong to also be paid $43 000 in lieu of notice when he resigned in disgrace? (3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
(2) Which specific clause in the contract allowed Dr Fong to also be paid $43 000 in lieu of notice when he resigned in disgrace? (3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
(3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
(1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
DR NEALE FONG — PAYOUT
To our part-time health minister, I refer to reports of a re-establishment fee and in lieu of notice — Mr M. McGowan : Are you part-time too? Dr K.D. HAMES : I am in opposition. There is a big difference between being a minister and being in my position. Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I call on you to give the member the opportunity to ask his question in silence, which is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : That is a little rich, given the level of interjections that have occurred this afternoon; however, I will say two things. When the member for Dawesville is asking a question, he should not be led into the old trick of answering interjections; if he is not, he may get through the question. To members on my right-hand side, the common decency of allowing members to actually ask a question would be appreciated. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : I will start again. To our part-time health minister — Point of Order Mr A.D. McRAE : Mr Speaker, that is the third time I have heard opposition members address ministers incorrectly, and I ask that you direct them to use the appropriate title. Dr K.D. HAMES : Further to that point of order, I said that my question was to the Minister for Health. “The part-time health minister” is part of the question. The SPEAKER : It is further semantics or an attempt at being clever at semantics. I think it fails. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : To our part-time health minister, I refer to reports of a re-establishment fee and a fee in lieu of notice paid to Dr Neale Fong. (1) Under the terms of the contract that the minister negotiated and signed off on to make Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia, would Dr Fong have received the $43 000 re-establishment payment if the minister had sacked him? (2) Which specific clause in the contract allowed Dr Fong to also be paid $43 000 in lieu of notice when he resigned in disgrace? (3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
Mr M. McGowan : Are you part-time too? Dr K.D. HAMES : I am in opposition. There is a big difference between being a minister and being in my position. Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I call on you to give the member the opportunity to ask his question in silence, which is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : That is a little rich, given the level of interjections that have occurred this afternoon; however, I will say two things. When the member for Dawesville is asking a question, he should not be led into the old trick of answering interjections; if he is not, he may get through the question. To members on my right-hand side, the common decency of allowing members to actually ask a question would be appreciated. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : I will start again. To our part-time health minister — Point of Order Mr A.D. McRAE : Mr Speaker, that is the third time I have heard opposition members address ministers incorrectly, and I ask that you direct them to use the appropriate title. Dr K.D. HAMES : Further to that point of order, I said that my question was to the Minister for Health. “The part-time health minister” is part of the question. The SPEAKER : It is further semantics or an attempt at being clever at semantics. I think it fails. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : To our part-time health minister, I refer to reports of a re-establishment fee and a fee in lieu of notice paid to Dr Neale Fong. (1) Under the terms of the contract that the minister negotiated and signed off on to make Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia, would Dr Fong have received the $43 000 re-establishment payment if the minister had sacked him? (2) Which specific clause in the contract allowed Dr Fong to also be paid $43 000 in lieu of notice when he resigned in disgrace? (3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
Dr K.D. HAMES : I am in opposition. There is a big difference between being a minister and being in my position. Point of Order Mr C.J. BARNETT : Mr Speaker, I call on you to give the member the opportunity to ask his question in silence, which is the convention of this house. The SPEAKER : That is a little rich, given the level of interjections that have occurred this afternoon; however, I will say two things. When the member for Dawesville is asking a question, he should not be led into the old trick of answering interjections; if he is not, he may get through the question. To members on my right-hand side, the common decency of allowing members to actually ask a question would be appreciated. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : I will start again. To our part-time health minister — Point of Order Mr A.D. McRAE : Mr Speaker, that is the third time I have heard opposition members address ministers incorrectly, and I ask that you direct them to use the appropriate title. Dr K.D. HAMES : Further to that point of order, I said that my question was to the Minister for Health. “The part-time health minister” is part of the question. The SPEAKER : It is further semantics or an attempt at being clever at semantics. I think it fails. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : To our part-time health minister, I refer to reports of a re-establishment fee and a fee in lieu of notice paid to Dr Neale Fong. (1) Under the terms of the contract that the minister negotiated and signed off on to make Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia, would Dr Fong have received the $43 000 re-establishment payment if the minister had sacked him? (2) Which specific clause in the contract allowed Dr Fong to also be paid $43 000 in lieu of notice when he resigned in disgrace? (3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
The SPEAKER : That is a little rich, given the level of interjections that have occurred this afternoon; however, I will say two things. When the member for Dawesville is asking a question, he should not be led into the old trick of answering interjections; if he is not, he may get through the question. To members on my right-hand side, the common decency of allowing members to actually ask a question would be appreciated. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : I will start again. To our part-time health minister — Point of Order Mr A.D. McRAE : Mr Speaker, that is the third time I have heard opposition members address ministers incorrectly, and I ask that you direct them to use the appropriate title. Dr K.D. HAMES : Further to that point of order, I said that my question was to the Minister for Health. “The part-time health minister” is part of the question. The SPEAKER : It is further semantics or an attempt at being clever at semantics. I think it fails. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : To our part-time health minister, I refer to reports of a re-establishment fee and a fee in lieu of notice paid to Dr Neale Fong. (1) Under the terms of the contract that the minister negotiated and signed off on to make Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia, would Dr Fong have received the $43 000 re-establishment payment if the minister had sacked him? (2) Which specific clause in the contract allowed Dr Fong to also be paid $43 000 in lieu of notice when he resigned in disgrace? (3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
Dr K.D. HAMES : Further to that point of order, I said that my question was to the Minister for Health. “The part-time health minister” is part of the question. The SPEAKER : It is further semantics or an attempt at being clever at semantics. I think it fails. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : To our part-time health minister, I refer to reports of a re-establishment fee and a fee in lieu of notice paid to Dr Neale Fong. (1) Under the terms of the contract that the minister negotiated and signed off on to make Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia, would Dr Fong have received the $43 000 re-establishment payment if the minister had sacked him? (2) Which specific clause in the contract allowed Dr Fong to also be paid $43 000 in lieu of notice when he resigned in disgrace? (3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
The SPEAKER : It is further semantics or an attempt at being clever at semantics. I think it fails. Questions without Notice Resumed Dr K.D. HAMES : To our part-time health minister, I refer to reports of a re-establishment fee and a fee in lieu of notice paid to Dr Neale Fong. (1) Under the terms of the contract that the minister negotiated and signed off on to make Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia, would Dr Fong have received the $43 000 re-establishment payment if the minister had sacked him? (2) Which specific clause in the contract allowed Dr Fong to also be paid $43 000 in lieu of notice when he resigned in disgrace? (3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
(1) Under the terms of the contract that the minister negotiated and signed off on to make Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia, would Dr Fong have received the $43 000 re-establishment payment if the minister had sacked him? (2) Which specific clause in the contract allowed Dr Fong to also be paid $43 000 in lieu of notice when he resigned in disgrace? (3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
(2) Which specific clause in the contract allowed Dr Fong to also be paid $43 000 in lieu of notice when he resigned in disgrace? (3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
(3) Given that the minister played a key role in making Dr Fong the highest paid public servant in Australia by developing the contract that resulted in the payments, will the minister personally refund to the taxpayers of Western Australia the $86 000 lost from these dubious payments? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied : (1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
(1)-(3) The member should be aware—in case he is not, I will just remind him—that in April 2006 Neale Fong’s contract was made public for everyone to see, including the performance indicators and the financial provisions that are contained in that contract. I am sure that the member is very capable of reading that for himself. Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
Dr K.D. Hames : They weren’t in the original. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Has the member forgotten that that contract was made public? Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
Dr K.D. Hames : No. Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : Why is the member referring to the contract as containing no performance indicators when it clearly did? I make this point: last week the member for Dawesville had a very unfortunate event, when he misled his leader about obstetric services at Fiona Stanley Hospital. His leader very brashly said that something had been secretly pulled out of Fiona Stanley Hospital; namely, obstetric services. We pointed out that we had informed the Parliament and the public of that issue. What was the response? The member for Dawesville could not even remember the answer to the question that he asked. I wonder what the member was on at the time. He asked a question, and we gave a straight answer and said that obstetric services would be part of stage 2 of Fiona Stanley Hospital. The answer could not be any clearer than that. We then had the misfortune of the member for Dawesville misleading his own leader because he could not remember the answer to the question that he had asked. We have a touch of that again today with some of the elements of the preface to the question, when the member referred to the contract—if he had read it, he would have seen the performance indicators that are contained in it—and wrongly said that there were no performance indicators in it. The member for Dawesville is quite capable of reading that contract and knowing exactly what it means. He was probably too lazy to do it, and that is his problem. The contract is public; it was revealed two years ago for everyone to see. People are quite capable of looking at it and determining what it means. In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
In the case of Dr Fong’s payout, we made it quite clear on the day that he resigned and on the day the Corruption and Crime Commission report came down that he would receive what he was legally entitled to under that contract and nothing more—there would be no golden handshake or discretionary payments given to him. As the Premier has just said, the legal advice from the state government’s lawyers was that these were the amounts that were required to be paid under that contract, and not a cent more was paid.
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.