❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice addresses health funding cuts to not-for-profit organisations (NFPOs) following an Auditor General's report, questioning the rationale and accountability behind the decisions. The Minister defends the cuts based on value for money and alignment with departmental priorities.
AnsweredQoN 1350Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
With regard to recent cuts to not-for-profit organisations health funding, and the minister’s statement of 16 September 2003 in which he said - The Auditor General’s report tabled in April 2003 on contracting NFPOs to deliver health services raised serious concerns about the lack of accountability of public money going to these organisations. Today, I have implemented cuts to some NFPOs and Department programs as the first step to ensure accountability . . . I ask - (1) Exactly which, if any, of the NFPOs the minister has defunded were identified in the Auditor General’s report as lacking accountability? (2) If the answer to (1) does not include all the NFPOs, will the minister now apologise to those organisations not identified in the Auditor General’s report for the inference of poor management? (3) If the defunding was not related to concerns of lack of accountability, can the minister table any documentation of the criteria used for defunding? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Auditor General’s report did not specifically identify any NFPOs but raised concerns about the thoroughness of evaluation of whether the services funded represented best value for public money. (2) No. Any inference of poor management related to Department of Health processes. (3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
Today, I have implemented cuts to some NFPOs and Department programs as the first step to ensure accountability . . .
(1) Exactly which, if any, of the NFPOs the minister has defunded were identified in the Auditor General’s report as lacking accountability? (2) If the answer to (1) does not include all the NFPOs, will the minister now apologise to those organisations not identified in the Auditor General’s report for the inference of poor management? (3) If the defunding was not related to concerns of lack of accountability, can the minister table any documentation of the criteria used for defunding? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Auditor General’s report did not specifically identify any NFPOs but raised concerns about the thoroughness of evaluation of whether the services funded represented best value for public money. (2) No. Any inference of poor management related to Department of Health processes. (3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
(2) If the answer to (1) does not include all the NFPOs, will the minister now apologise to those organisations not identified in the Auditor General’s report for the inference of poor management? (3) If the defunding was not related to concerns of lack of accountability, can the minister table any documentation of the criteria used for defunding? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Auditor General’s report did not specifically identify any NFPOs but raised concerns about the thoroughness of evaluation of whether the services funded represented best value for public money. (2) No. Any inference of poor management related to Department of Health processes. (3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
(3) If the defunding was not related to concerns of lack of accountability, can the minister table any documentation of the criteria used for defunding? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Auditor General’s report did not specifically identify any NFPOs but raised concerns about the thoroughness of evaluation of whether the services funded represented best value for public money. (2) No. Any inference of poor management related to Department of Health processes. (3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
(4) If no to (3), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Auditor General’s report did not specifically identify any NFPOs but raised concerns about the thoroughness of evaluation of whether the services funded represented best value for public money. (2) No. Any inference of poor management related to Department of Health processes. (3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Auditor General’s report did not specifically identify any NFPOs but raised concerns about the thoroughness of evaluation of whether the services funded represented best value for public money. (2) No. Any inference of poor management related to Department of Health processes. (3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Auditor General’s report did not specifically identify any NFPOs but raised concerns about the thoroughness of evaluation of whether the services funded represented best value for public money. (2) No. Any inference of poor management related to Department of Health processes. (3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
(1) The Auditor General’s report did not specifically identify any NFPOs but raised concerns about the thoroughness of evaluation of whether the services funded represented best value for public money. (2) No. Any inference of poor management related to Department of Health processes. (3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
(2) No. Any inference of poor management related to Department of Health processes. (3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
(3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
(b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health.
(c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health.
(d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health.
(e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health.
(f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health.
(g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health.
(h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health.
Today, I have implemented cuts to some NFPOs and Department programs as the first step to ensure accountability . . .
(1) Exactly which, if any, of the NFPOs the minister has defunded were identified in the Auditor General’s report as lacking accountability? (2) If the answer to (1) does not include all the NFPOs, will the minister now apologise to those organisations not identified in the Auditor General’s report for the inference of poor management? (3) If the defunding was not related to concerns of lack of accountability, can the minister table any documentation of the criteria used for defunding? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Auditor General’s report did not specifically identify any NFPOs but raised concerns about the thoroughness of evaluation of whether the services funded represented best value for public money. (2) No. Any inference of poor management related to Department of Health processes. (3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
(2) If the answer to (1) does not include all the NFPOs, will the minister now apologise to those organisations not identified in the Auditor General’s report for the inference of poor management? (3) If the defunding was not related to concerns of lack of accountability, can the minister table any documentation of the criteria used for defunding? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Auditor General’s report did not specifically identify any NFPOs but raised concerns about the thoroughness of evaluation of whether the services funded represented best value for public money. (2) No. Any inference of poor management related to Department of Health processes. (3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
(3) If the defunding was not related to concerns of lack of accountability, can the minister table any documentation of the criteria used for defunding? (4) If no to (3), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Auditor General’s report did not specifically identify any NFPOs but raised concerns about the thoroughness of evaluation of whether the services funded represented best value for public money. (2) No. Any inference of poor management related to Department of Health processes. (3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
(4) If no to (3), why not? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Auditor General’s report did not specifically identify any NFPOs but raised concerns about the thoroughness of evaluation of whether the services funded represented best value for public money. (2) No. Any inference of poor management related to Department of Health processes. (3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Auditor General’s report did not specifically identify any NFPOs but raised concerns about the thoroughness of evaluation of whether the services funded represented best value for public money. (2) No. Any inference of poor management related to Department of Health processes. (3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) The Auditor General’s report did not specifically identify any NFPOs but raised concerns about the thoroughness of evaluation of whether the services funded represented best value for public money. (2) No. Any inference of poor management related to Department of Health processes. (3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
(1) The Auditor General’s report did not specifically identify any NFPOs but raised concerns about the thoroughness of evaluation of whether the services funded represented best value for public money. (2) No. Any inference of poor management related to Department of Health processes. (3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
(2) No. Any inference of poor management related to Department of Health processes. (3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
(3) It is imperative that health resources are directed to those areas of greatest need. The criteria established to assess value for public money are as follows - (a) The service is aligned to Department of Health core business. (b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health. (4) Not applicable.
(b) The service provides a direct intervention to individuals or specific high-risk groups. (c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health.
(c) The service is aligned with evidence-based and/or best practice. (d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health.
(d) There is no duplication of the service within an accessible location. (e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health.
(e) The service is economically efficient. (f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health.
(f) There is no discretion to redirect funds or the service has a fixed contractual arrangement. (g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health.
(g) The service performs according to contracted output/s. (h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health.
(h) Removal of funds has minimal impact on other services funded by the Department of Health.
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.