❓ A parliamentary question reveals police officers in WA may have had vasectomies and breast augmentations subsidised due to a broad medical entitlement agreement established by a previous Labor government. The Minister expresses concern and aims to renegotiate the agreement to better support injured former officers.
AnsweredQoN 312Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Has any government money been contributed towards either of the following medical procedures for police officers - (a) vasectomies; (b) breast augmentations? (2) If so, how many officers have had these procedures subsidised? (3) What other elective medical procedures, if any, have police officers had subsidised? Mr PRINCE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some little notice of this question. The SPEAKER: I am sure the minister needed some notice! Mr PRINCE: Yes. It gives me the opportunity to say something about the generous medical provisions given to police officers under police regulations when Labor was in government in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It was the member for Midland's lot who first agreed to those conditions! The Labor Government agreed to comprehensive medical entitlements for both work and non-work related medical expenses. The entitlement provides for reimbursement of the amount paid for non-work related health care, less any amount paid by Medicare or private medical insurance. Accordingly, all police officers may seek reimbursement for a range of services that are not work related. That has been the situation since the Labor Party agreed to this benefit. I have been aware of the provision for the past two and a half years. I am also aware of officers who were injured while on duty, who have left the Police Service, who are still suffering severe injuries and whose medication expenses are only partly met by Medicare or the private system. They should be receiving greater assistance. I have discussed this with the Police Union on a number of occasions. However, it was adamant that it would not agree to our transferring some of the present government-pays-for-everything entitlement to former police officers who are suffering medical problems due to something that occurred while they were at work. The Labor Party agreed to medical entitlements that apply to everything, whether they are work related or non-work related injuries or elective surgery procedures. I have discussed this matter at some length and we have been unable to reach a resolution. However, it is very high on the agenda for the next enterprise bargaining agreement discussions with the union. I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
(b) breast augmentations?
(3) What other elective medical procedures, if any, have police officers had subsidised? Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some little notice of this question. The SPEAKER: I am sure the minister needed some notice! Mr PRINCE: Yes. It gives me the opportunity to say something about the generous medical provisions given to police officers under police regulations when Labor was in government in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It was the member for Midland's lot who first agreed to those conditions! The Labor Government agreed to comprehensive medical entitlements for both work and non-work related medical expenses. The entitlement provides for reimbursement of the amount paid for non-work related health care, less any amount paid by Medicare or private medical insurance. Accordingly, all police officers may seek reimbursement for a range of services that are not work related. That has been the situation since the Labor Party agreed to this benefit. I have been aware of the provision for the past two and a half years. I am also aware of officers who were injured while on duty, who have left the Police Service, who are still suffering severe injuries and whose medication expenses are only partly met by Medicare or the private system. They should be receiving greater assistance. I have discussed this with the Police Union on a number of occasions. However, it was adamant that it would not agree to our transferring some of the present government-pays-for-everything entitlement to former police officers who are suffering medical problems due to something that occurred while they were at work. The Labor Party agreed to medical entitlements that apply to everything, whether they are work related or non-work related injuries or elective surgery procedures. I have discussed this matter at some length and we have been unable to reach a resolution. However, it is very high on the agenda for the next enterprise bargaining agreement discussions with the union. I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some little notice of this question. The SPEAKER: I am sure the minister needed some notice! Mr PRINCE: Yes. It gives me the opportunity to say something about the generous medical provisions given to police officers under police regulations when Labor was in government in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It was the member for Midland's lot who first agreed to those conditions! The Labor Government agreed to comprehensive medical entitlements for both work and non-work related medical expenses. The entitlement provides for reimbursement of the amount paid for non-work related health care, less any amount paid by Medicare or private medical insurance. Accordingly, all police officers may seek reimbursement for a range of services that are not work related. That has been the situation since the Labor Party agreed to this benefit. I have been aware of the provision for the past two and a half years. I am also aware of officers who were injured while on duty, who have left the Police Service, who are still suffering severe injuries and whose medication expenses are only partly met by Medicare or the private system. They should be receiving greater assistance. I have discussed this with the Police Union on a number of occasions. However, it was adamant that it would not agree to our transferring some of the present government-pays-for-everything entitlement to former police officers who are suffering medical problems due to something that occurred while they were at work. The Labor Party agreed to medical entitlements that apply to everything, whether they are work related or non-work related injuries or elective surgery procedures. I have discussed this matter at some length and we have been unable to reach a resolution. However, it is very high on the agenda for the next enterprise bargaining agreement discussions with the union. I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
I thank the member for some little notice of this question. The SPEAKER: I am sure the minister needed some notice! Mr PRINCE: Yes. It gives me the opportunity to say something about the generous medical provisions given to police officers under police regulations when Labor was in government in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It was the member for Midland's lot who first agreed to those conditions! The Labor Government agreed to comprehensive medical entitlements for both work and non-work related medical expenses. The entitlement provides for reimbursement of the amount paid for non-work related health care, less any amount paid by Medicare or private medical insurance. Accordingly, all police officers may seek reimbursement for a range of services that are not work related. That has been the situation since the Labor Party agreed to this benefit. I have been aware of the provision for the past two and a half years. I am also aware of officers who were injured while on duty, who have left the Police Service, who are still suffering severe injuries and whose medication expenses are only partly met by Medicare or the private system. They should be receiving greater assistance. I have discussed this with the Police Union on a number of occasions. However, it was adamant that it would not agree to our transferring some of the present government-pays-for-everything entitlement to former police officers who are suffering medical problems due to something that occurred while they were at work. The Labor Party agreed to medical entitlements that apply to everything, whether they are work related or non-work related injuries or elective surgery procedures. I have discussed this matter at some length and we have been unable to reach a resolution. However, it is very high on the agenda for the next enterprise bargaining agreement discussions with the union. I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
The SPEAKER: I am sure the minister needed some notice! Mr PRINCE: Yes. It gives me the opportunity to say something about the generous medical provisions given to police officers under police regulations when Labor was in government in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It was the member for Midland's lot who first agreed to those conditions! The Labor Government agreed to comprehensive medical entitlements for both work and non-work related medical expenses. The entitlement provides for reimbursement of the amount paid for non-work related health care, less any amount paid by Medicare or private medical insurance. Accordingly, all police officers may seek reimbursement for a range of services that are not work related. That has been the situation since the Labor Party agreed to this benefit. I have been aware of the provision for the past two and a half years. I am also aware of officers who were injured while on duty, who have left the Police Service, who are still suffering severe injuries and whose medication expenses are only partly met by Medicare or the private system. They should be receiving greater assistance. I have discussed this with the Police Union on a number of occasions. However, it was adamant that it would not agree to our transferring some of the present government-pays-for-everything entitlement to former police officers who are suffering medical problems due to something that occurred while they were at work. The Labor Party agreed to medical entitlements that apply to everything, whether they are work related or non-work related injuries or elective surgery procedures. I have discussed this matter at some length and we have been unable to reach a resolution. However, it is very high on the agenda for the next enterprise bargaining agreement discussions with the union. I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
Mr PRINCE: Yes. It gives me the opportunity to say something about the generous medical provisions given to police officers under police regulations when Labor was in government in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It was the member for Midland's lot who first agreed to those conditions! The Labor Government agreed to comprehensive medical entitlements for both work and non-work related medical expenses. The entitlement provides for reimbursement of the amount paid for non-work related health care, less any amount paid by Medicare or private medical insurance. Accordingly, all police officers may seek reimbursement for a range of services that are not work related. That has been the situation since the Labor Party agreed to this benefit. I have been aware of the provision for the past two and a half years. I am also aware of officers who were injured while on duty, who have left the Police Service, who are still suffering severe injuries and whose medication expenses are only partly met by Medicare or the private system. They should be receiving greater assistance. I have discussed this with the Police Union on a number of occasions. However, it was adamant that it would not agree to our transferring some of the present government-pays-for-everything entitlement to former police officers who are suffering medical problems due to something that occurred while they were at work. The Labor Party agreed to medical entitlements that apply to everything, whether they are work related or non-work related injuries or elective surgery procedures. I have discussed this matter at some length and we have been unable to reach a resolution. However, it is very high on the agenda for the next enterprise bargaining agreement discussions with the union. I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
The Labor Government agreed to comprehensive medical entitlements for both work and non-work related medical expenses. The entitlement provides for reimbursement of the amount paid for non-work related health care, less any amount paid by Medicare or private medical insurance. Accordingly, all police officers may seek reimbursement for a range of services that are not work related. That has been the situation since the Labor Party agreed to this benefit. I have been aware of the provision for the past two and a half years. I am also aware of officers who were injured while on duty, who have left the Police Service, who are still suffering severe injuries and whose medication expenses are only partly met by Medicare or the private system. They should be receiving greater assistance. I have discussed this with the Police Union on a number of occasions. However, it was adamant that it would not agree to our transferring some of the present government-pays-for-everything entitlement to former police officers who are suffering medical problems due to something that occurred while they were at work. The Labor Party agreed to medical entitlements that apply to everything, whether they are work related or non-work related injuries or elective surgery procedures. I have discussed this matter at some length and we have been unable to reach a resolution. However, it is very high on the agenda for the next enterprise bargaining agreement discussions with the union. I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
I have been aware of the provision for the past two and a half years. I am also aware of officers who were injured while on duty, who have left the Police Service, who are still suffering severe injuries and whose medication expenses are only partly met by Medicare or the private system. They should be receiving greater assistance. I have discussed this with the Police Union on a number of occasions. However, it was adamant that it would not agree to our transferring some of the present government-pays-for-everything entitlement to former police officers who are suffering medical problems due to something that occurred while they were at work. The Labor Party agreed to medical entitlements that apply to everything, whether they are work related or non-work related injuries or elective surgery procedures. I have discussed this matter at some length and we have been unable to reach a resolution. However, it is very high on the agenda for the next enterprise bargaining agreement discussions with the union. I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
The Labor Party agreed to medical entitlements that apply to everything, whether they are work related or non-work related injuries or elective surgery procedures. I have discussed this matter at some length and we have been unable to reach a resolution. However, it is very high on the agenda for the next enterprise bargaining agreement discussions with the union. I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
(b) breast augmentations?
(3) What other elective medical procedures, if any, have police officers had subsidised? Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some little notice of this question. The SPEAKER: I am sure the minister needed some notice! Mr PRINCE: Yes. It gives me the opportunity to say something about the generous medical provisions given to police officers under police regulations when Labor was in government in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It was the member for Midland's lot who first agreed to those conditions! The Labor Government agreed to comprehensive medical entitlements for both work and non-work related medical expenses. The entitlement provides for reimbursement of the amount paid for non-work related health care, less any amount paid by Medicare or private medical insurance. Accordingly, all police officers may seek reimbursement for a range of services that are not work related. That has been the situation since the Labor Party agreed to this benefit. I have been aware of the provision for the past two and a half years. I am also aware of officers who were injured while on duty, who have left the Police Service, who are still suffering severe injuries and whose medication expenses are only partly met by Medicare or the private system. They should be receiving greater assistance. I have discussed this with the Police Union on a number of occasions. However, it was adamant that it would not agree to our transferring some of the present government-pays-for-everything entitlement to former police officers who are suffering medical problems due to something that occurred while they were at work. The Labor Party agreed to medical entitlements that apply to everything, whether they are work related or non-work related injuries or elective surgery procedures. I have discussed this matter at some length and we have been unable to reach a resolution. However, it is very high on the agenda for the next enterprise bargaining agreement discussions with the union. I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
Mr PRINCE replied: I thank the member for some little notice of this question. The SPEAKER: I am sure the minister needed some notice! Mr PRINCE: Yes. It gives me the opportunity to say something about the generous medical provisions given to police officers under police regulations when Labor was in government in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It was the member for Midland's lot who first agreed to those conditions! The Labor Government agreed to comprehensive medical entitlements for both work and non-work related medical expenses. The entitlement provides for reimbursement of the amount paid for non-work related health care, less any amount paid by Medicare or private medical insurance. Accordingly, all police officers may seek reimbursement for a range of services that are not work related. That has been the situation since the Labor Party agreed to this benefit. I have been aware of the provision for the past two and a half years. I am also aware of officers who were injured while on duty, who have left the Police Service, who are still suffering severe injuries and whose medication expenses are only partly met by Medicare or the private system. They should be receiving greater assistance. I have discussed this with the Police Union on a number of occasions. However, it was adamant that it would not agree to our transferring some of the present government-pays-for-everything entitlement to former police officers who are suffering medical problems due to something that occurred while they were at work. The Labor Party agreed to medical entitlements that apply to everything, whether they are work related or non-work related injuries or elective surgery procedures. I have discussed this matter at some length and we have been unable to reach a resolution. However, it is very high on the agenda for the next enterprise bargaining agreement discussions with the union. I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
I thank the member for some little notice of this question. The SPEAKER: I am sure the minister needed some notice! Mr PRINCE: Yes. It gives me the opportunity to say something about the generous medical provisions given to police officers under police regulations when Labor was in government in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It was the member for Midland's lot who first agreed to those conditions! The Labor Government agreed to comprehensive medical entitlements for both work and non-work related medical expenses. The entitlement provides for reimbursement of the amount paid for non-work related health care, less any amount paid by Medicare or private medical insurance. Accordingly, all police officers may seek reimbursement for a range of services that are not work related. That has been the situation since the Labor Party agreed to this benefit. I have been aware of the provision for the past two and a half years. I am also aware of officers who were injured while on duty, who have left the Police Service, who are still suffering severe injuries and whose medication expenses are only partly met by Medicare or the private system. They should be receiving greater assistance. I have discussed this with the Police Union on a number of occasions. However, it was adamant that it would not agree to our transferring some of the present government-pays-for-everything entitlement to former police officers who are suffering medical problems due to something that occurred while they were at work. The Labor Party agreed to medical entitlements that apply to everything, whether they are work related or non-work related injuries or elective surgery procedures. I have discussed this matter at some length and we have been unable to reach a resolution. However, it is very high on the agenda for the next enterprise bargaining agreement discussions with the union. I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
The SPEAKER: I am sure the minister needed some notice! Mr PRINCE: Yes. It gives me the opportunity to say something about the generous medical provisions given to police officers under police regulations when Labor was in government in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It was the member for Midland's lot who first agreed to those conditions! The Labor Government agreed to comprehensive medical entitlements for both work and non-work related medical expenses. The entitlement provides for reimbursement of the amount paid for non-work related health care, less any amount paid by Medicare or private medical insurance. Accordingly, all police officers may seek reimbursement for a range of services that are not work related. That has been the situation since the Labor Party agreed to this benefit. I have been aware of the provision for the past two and a half years. I am also aware of officers who were injured while on duty, who have left the Police Service, who are still suffering severe injuries and whose medication expenses are only partly met by Medicare or the private system. They should be receiving greater assistance. I have discussed this with the Police Union on a number of occasions. However, it was adamant that it would not agree to our transferring some of the present government-pays-for-everything entitlement to former police officers who are suffering medical problems due to something that occurred while they were at work. The Labor Party agreed to medical entitlements that apply to everything, whether they are work related or non-work related injuries or elective surgery procedures. I have discussed this matter at some length and we have been unable to reach a resolution. However, it is very high on the agenda for the next enterprise bargaining agreement discussions with the union. I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
Mr PRINCE: Yes. It gives me the opportunity to say something about the generous medical provisions given to police officers under police regulations when Labor was in government in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It was the member for Midland's lot who first agreed to those conditions! The Labor Government agreed to comprehensive medical entitlements for both work and non-work related medical expenses. The entitlement provides for reimbursement of the amount paid for non-work related health care, less any amount paid by Medicare or private medical insurance. Accordingly, all police officers may seek reimbursement for a range of services that are not work related. That has been the situation since the Labor Party agreed to this benefit. I have been aware of the provision for the past two and a half years. I am also aware of officers who were injured while on duty, who have left the Police Service, who are still suffering severe injuries and whose medication expenses are only partly met by Medicare or the private system. They should be receiving greater assistance. I have discussed this with the Police Union on a number of occasions. However, it was adamant that it would not agree to our transferring some of the present government-pays-for-everything entitlement to former police officers who are suffering medical problems due to something that occurred while they were at work. The Labor Party agreed to medical entitlements that apply to everything, whether they are work related or non-work related injuries or elective surgery procedures. I have discussed this matter at some length and we have been unable to reach a resolution. However, it is very high on the agenda for the next enterprise bargaining agreement discussions with the union. I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
The Labor Government agreed to comprehensive medical entitlements for both work and non-work related medical expenses. The entitlement provides for reimbursement of the amount paid for non-work related health care, less any amount paid by Medicare or private medical insurance. Accordingly, all police officers may seek reimbursement for a range of services that are not work related. That has been the situation since the Labor Party agreed to this benefit. I have been aware of the provision for the past two and a half years. I am also aware of officers who were injured while on duty, who have left the Police Service, who are still suffering severe injuries and whose medication expenses are only partly met by Medicare or the private system. They should be receiving greater assistance. I have discussed this with the Police Union on a number of occasions. However, it was adamant that it would not agree to our transferring some of the present government-pays-for-everything entitlement to former police officers who are suffering medical problems due to something that occurred while they were at work. The Labor Party agreed to medical entitlements that apply to everything, whether they are work related or non-work related injuries or elective surgery procedures. I have discussed this matter at some length and we have been unable to reach a resolution. However, it is very high on the agenda for the next enterprise bargaining agreement discussions with the union. I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
I have been aware of the provision for the past two and a half years. I am also aware of officers who were injured while on duty, who have left the Police Service, who are still suffering severe injuries and whose medication expenses are only partly met by Medicare or the private system. They should be receiving greater assistance. I have discussed this with the Police Union on a number of occasions. However, it was adamant that it would not agree to our transferring some of the present government-pays-for-everything entitlement to former police officers who are suffering medical problems due to something that occurred while they were at work. The Labor Party agreed to medical entitlements that apply to everything, whether they are work related or non-work related injuries or elective surgery procedures. I have discussed this matter at some length and we have been unable to reach a resolution. However, it is very high on the agenda for the next enterprise bargaining agreement discussions with the union. I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
The Labor Party agreed to medical entitlements that apply to everything, whether they are work related or non-work related injuries or elective surgery procedures. I have discussed this matter at some length and we have been unable to reach a resolution. However, it is very high on the agenda for the next enterprise bargaining agreement discussions with the union. I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
I am delighted that the member for Midland has raised this matter. She has given it a public profile, which the union will be very unhappy about. There is no way it wanted the matter brought to the attention of the public in this way. Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
Mrs Roberts: If it is a rort, you have known about if for two and half years. Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
Mr PRINCE: It is not a rort. If police officers have been using the entitlement for vasectomies and breast augmentations, they have been doing so legitimately because the Labor Party agreed to it. I do not think they should. I shall be using this argument in my negotiations with them to have the non-work related injury part of the medical entitlement removed and transferred to former, retired police officers who have an ongoing medical problem as a result of their service. I thank the member for raising it.
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.