❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice addresses the Department of Health's use of specific purpose funds to cover operating costs, potential budget overruns, and a rejected funding request. The Minister's response deflects direct answers, citing confidentiality and an upcoming public interest debate.
AnsweredQoN 930Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH — SPECIFIC PURPOSE FUNDS
I refer to the admissions yesterday by the director general of the Department of Health that the department used $70 million of specific purpose and other funds to pay 2008-09 operating costs. (1) Will the minister confirm that in early June 2009 the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee refused a request for extra funds from the department despite advice that services would have to be closed or staff would not be paid if the funds were not available? (2) Can the minister confirm that a member of his department gave unqualified assurances to Parliament that specific purpose funds would not be used to cover shortfalls in operational funds management? (3) It is not even Christmas, but does the minister concede that his department’s budget at this stage is set to blow out by an additional $200 million this financial year? Dr K.D. HAMES
I refer to the admissions yesterday by the director general of the Department of Health that the department used $70 million of specific purpose and other funds to pay 2008-09 operating costs. (1) Will the minister confirm that in early June 2009 the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee refused a request for extra funds from the department despite advice that services would have to be closed or staff would not be paid if the funds were not available? (2) Can the minister confirm that a member of his department gave unqualified assurances to Parliament that specific purpose funds would not be used to cover shortfalls in operational funds management? (3) It is not even Christmas, but does the minister concede that his department’s budget at this stage is set to blow out by an additional $200 million this financial year? Dr K.D. HAMES
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I do not know why the member keeps doing this. Obviously it is because the press are here and are listening. A matter of public interest is listed on the notice paper to discuss exactly these matters. That will give me the opportunity to discuss these things in full. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : The member does not even want to know the answer. I cannot tell the member about what happened at the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee because that is a cabinet subcommittee. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, I am not permitted to talk about things that happen at the EERC. What I can tell members is that we put forward the case that we needed additional funds and some additional funds were provided by Treasury. As it turned out, they were not the full amount that was required to cover the bills that we had to pay. As was pointed out by the director general in the Legislative Council’s estimates and financial operations committee, that figure represents a 0.5 per cent variation in the budget. Anyone would accept that to come within $25 million in a budget of nearly $5 billion is a pretty good effort. The shadow minister talks about us being $70 million over budget, but he should remember that when we came to government in September 2008, the first thing the former Minister for Health said to me was that we were $100 million over budget—not $70 million. When we took office three months into the financial year, that is how much the Labor government was over budget in health. Mr B.S. Wyatt : And you ended up $370 million over budget. Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
(1) Will the minister confirm that in early June 2009 the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee refused a request for extra funds from the department despite advice that services would have to be closed or staff would not be paid if the funds were not available? (2) Can the minister confirm that a member of his department gave unqualified assurances to Parliament that specific purpose funds would not be used to cover shortfalls in operational funds management? (3) It is not even Christmas, but does the minister concede that his department’s budget at this stage is set to blow out by an additional $200 million this financial year? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(3) I do not know why the member keeps doing this. Obviously it is because the press are here and are listening. A matter of public interest is listed on the notice paper to discuss exactly these matters. That will give me the opportunity to discuss these things in full. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : The member does not even want to know the answer. I cannot tell the member about what happened at the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee because that is a cabinet subcommittee. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, I am not permitted to talk about things that happen at the EERC. What I can tell members is that we put forward the case that we needed additional funds and some additional funds were provided by Treasury. As it turned out, they were not the full amount that was required to cover the bills that we had to pay. As was pointed out by the director general in the Legislative Council’s estimates and financial operations committee, that figure represents a 0.5 per cent variation in the budget. Anyone would accept that to come within $25 million in a budget of nearly $5 billion is a pretty good effort. The shadow minister talks about us being $70 million over budget, but he should remember that when we came to government in September 2008, the first thing the former Minister for Health said to me was that we were $100 million over budget—not $70 million. When we took office three months into the financial year, that is how much the Labor government was over budget in health. Mr B.S. Wyatt : And you ended up $370 million over budget. Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
(2) Can the minister confirm that a member of his department gave unqualified assurances to Parliament that specific purpose funds would not be used to cover shortfalls in operational funds management? (3) It is not even Christmas, but does the minister concede that his department’s budget at this stage is set to blow out by an additional $200 million this financial year? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(3) I do not know why the member keeps doing this. Obviously it is because the press are here and are listening. A matter of public interest is listed on the notice paper to discuss exactly these matters. That will give me the opportunity to discuss these things in full. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : The member does not even want to know the answer. I cannot tell the member about what happened at the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee because that is a cabinet subcommittee. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, I am not permitted to talk about things that happen at the EERC. What I can tell members is that we put forward the case that we needed additional funds and some additional funds were provided by Treasury. As it turned out, they were not the full amount that was required to cover the bills that we had to pay. As was pointed out by the director general in the Legislative Council’s estimates and financial operations committee, that figure represents a 0.5 per cent variation in the budget. Anyone would accept that to come within $25 million in a budget of nearly $5 billion is a pretty good effort. The shadow minister talks about us being $70 million over budget, but he should remember that when we came to government in September 2008, the first thing the former Minister for Health said to me was that we were $100 million over budget—not $70 million. When we took office three months into the financial year, that is how much the Labor government was over budget in health. Mr B.S. Wyatt : And you ended up $370 million over budget. Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
(3) It is not even Christmas, but does the minister concede that his department’s budget at this stage is set to blow out by an additional $200 million this financial year? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(3) I do not know why the member keeps doing this. Obviously it is because the press are here and are listening. A matter of public interest is listed on the notice paper to discuss exactly these matters. That will give me the opportunity to discuss these things in full. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : The member does not even want to know the answer. I cannot tell the member about what happened at the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee because that is a cabinet subcommittee. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, I am not permitted to talk about things that happen at the EERC. What I can tell members is that we put forward the case that we needed additional funds and some additional funds were provided by Treasury. As it turned out, they were not the full amount that was required to cover the bills that we had to pay. As was pointed out by the director general in the Legislative Council’s estimates and financial operations committee, that figure represents a 0.5 per cent variation in the budget. Anyone would accept that to come within $25 million in a budget of nearly $5 billion is a pretty good effort. The shadow minister talks about us being $70 million over budget, but he should remember that when we came to government in September 2008, the first thing the former Minister for Health said to me was that we were $100 million over budget—not $70 million. When we took office three months into the financial year, that is how much the Labor government was over budget in health. Mr B.S. Wyatt : And you ended up $370 million over budget. Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(3) I do not know why the member keeps doing this. Obviously it is because the press are here and are listening. A matter of public interest is listed on the notice paper to discuss exactly these matters. That will give me the opportunity to discuss these things in full. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : The member does not even want to know the answer. I cannot tell the member about what happened at the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee because that is a cabinet subcommittee. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, I am not permitted to talk about things that happen at the EERC. What I can tell members is that we put forward the case that we needed additional funds and some additional funds were provided by Treasury. As it turned out, they were not the full amount that was required to cover the bills that we had to pay. As was pointed out by the director general in the Legislative Council’s estimates and financial operations committee, that figure represents a 0.5 per cent variation in the budget. Anyone would accept that to come within $25 million in a budget of nearly $5 billion is a pretty good effort. The shadow minister talks about us being $70 million over budget, but he should remember that when we came to government in September 2008, the first thing the former Minister for Health said to me was that we were $100 million over budget—not $70 million. When we took office three months into the financial year, that is how much the Labor government was over budget in health. Mr B.S. Wyatt : And you ended up $370 million over budget. Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
(1)-(3) I do not know why the member keeps doing this. Obviously it is because the press are here and are listening. A matter of public interest is listed on the notice paper to discuss exactly these matters. That will give me the opportunity to discuss these things in full. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : The member does not even want to know the answer. I cannot tell the member about what happened at the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee because that is a cabinet subcommittee. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, I am not permitted to talk about things that happen at the EERC. What I can tell members is that we put forward the case that we needed additional funds and some additional funds were provided by Treasury. As it turned out, they were not the full amount that was required to cover the bills that we had to pay. As was pointed out by the director general in the Legislative Council’s estimates and financial operations committee, that figure represents a 0.5 per cent variation in the budget. Anyone would accept that to come within $25 million in a budget of nearly $5 billion is a pretty good effort. The shadow minister talks about us being $70 million over budget, but he should remember that when we came to government in September 2008, the first thing the former Minister for Health said to me was that we were $100 million over budget—not $70 million. When we took office three months into the financial year, that is how much the Labor government was over budget in health. Mr B.S. Wyatt : And you ended up $370 million over budget. Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : The member does not even want to know the answer. I cannot tell the member about what happened at the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee because that is a cabinet subcommittee. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, I am not permitted to talk about things that happen at the EERC. What I can tell members is that we put forward the case that we needed additional funds and some additional funds were provided by Treasury. As it turned out, they were not the full amount that was required to cover the bills that we had to pay. As was pointed out by the director general in the Legislative Council’s estimates and financial operations committee, that figure represents a 0.5 per cent variation in the budget. Anyone would accept that to come within $25 million in a budget of nearly $5 billion is a pretty good effort. The shadow minister talks about us being $70 million over budget, but he should remember that when we came to government in September 2008, the first thing the former Minister for Health said to me was that we were $100 million over budget—not $70 million. When we took office three months into the financial year, that is how much the Labor government was over budget in health. Mr B.S. Wyatt : And you ended up $370 million over budget. Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
Dr K.D. HAMES : The member does not even want to know the answer. I cannot tell the member about what happened at the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee because that is a cabinet subcommittee. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, I am not permitted to talk about things that happen at the EERC. What I can tell members is that we put forward the case that we needed additional funds and some additional funds were provided by Treasury. As it turned out, they were not the full amount that was required to cover the bills that we had to pay. As was pointed out by the director general in the Legislative Council’s estimates and financial operations committee, that figure represents a 0.5 per cent variation in the budget. Anyone would accept that to come within $25 million in a budget of nearly $5 billion is a pretty good effort. The shadow minister talks about us being $70 million over budget, but he should remember that when we came to government in September 2008, the first thing the former Minister for Health said to me was that we were $100 million over budget—not $70 million. When we took office three months into the financial year, that is how much the Labor government was over budget in health. Mr B.S. Wyatt : And you ended up $370 million over budget. Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
Mr B.S. Wyatt : And you ended up $370 million over budget. Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
(1) Will the minister confirm that in early June 2009 the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee refused a request for extra funds from the department despite advice that services would have to be closed or staff would not be paid if the funds were not available? (2) Can the minister confirm that a member of his department gave unqualified assurances to Parliament that specific purpose funds would not be used to cover shortfalls in operational funds management? (3) It is not even Christmas, but does the minister concede that his department’s budget at this stage is set to blow out by an additional $200 million this financial year? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(3) I do not know why the member keeps doing this. Obviously it is because the press are here and are listening. A matter of public interest is listed on the notice paper to discuss exactly these matters. That will give me the opportunity to discuss these things in full. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : The member does not even want to know the answer. I cannot tell the member about what happened at the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee because that is a cabinet subcommittee. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, I am not permitted to talk about things that happen at the EERC. What I can tell members is that we put forward the case that we needed additional funds and some additional funds were provided by Treasury. As it turned out, they were not the full amount that was required to cover the bills that we had to pay. As was pointed out by the director general in the Legislative Council’s estimates and financial operations committee, that figure represents a 0.5 per cent variation in the budget. Anyone would accept that to come within $25 million in a budget of nearly $5 billion is a pretty good effort. The shadow minister talks about us being $70 million over budget, but he should remember that when we came to government in September 2008, the first thing the former Minister for Health said to me was that we were $100 million over budget—not $70 million. When we took office three months into the financial year, that is how much the Labor government was over budget in health. Mr B.S. Wyatt : And you ended up $370 million over budget. Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
(2) Can the minister confirm that a member of his department gave unqualified assurances to Parliament that specific purpose funds would not be used to cover shortfalls in operational funds management? (3) It is not even Christmas, but does the minister concede that his department’s budget at this stage is set to blow out by an additional $200 million this financial year? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(3) I do not know why the member keeps doing this. Obviously it is because the press are here and are listening. A matter of public interest is listed on the notice paper to discuss exactly these matters. That will give me the opportunity to discuss these things in full. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : The member does not even want to know the answer. I cannot tell the member about what happened at the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee because that is a cabinet subcommittee. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, I am not permitted to talk about things that happen at the EERC. What I can tell members is that we put forward the case that we needed additional funds and some additional funds were provided by Treasury. As it turned out, they were not the full amount that was required to cover the bills that we had to pay. As was pointed out by the director general in the Legislative Council’s estimates and financial operations committee, that figure represents a 0.5 per cent variation in the budget. Anyone would accept that to come within $25 million in a budget of nearly $5 billion is a pretty good effort. The shadow minister talks about us being $70 million over budget, but he should remember that when we came to government in September 2008, the first thing the former Minister for Health said to me was that we were $100 million over budget—not $70 million. When we took office three months into the financial year, that is how much the Labor government was over budget in health. Mr B.S. Wyatt : And you ended up $370 million over budget. Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
(3) It is not even Christmas, but does the minister concede that his department’s budget at this stage is set to blow out by an additional $200 million this financial year? Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(3) I do not know why the member keeps doing this. Obviously it is because the press are here and are listening. A matter of public interest is listed on the notice paper to discuss exactly these matters. That will give me the opportunity to discuss these things in full. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : The member does not even want to know the answer. I cannot tell the member about what happened at the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee because that is a cabinet subcommittee. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, I am not permitted to talk about things that happen at the EERC. What I can tell members is that we put forward the case that we needed additional funds and some additional funds were provided by Treasury. As it turned out, they were not the full amount that was required to cover the bills that we had to pay. As was pointed out by the director general in the Legislative Council’s estimates and financial operations committee, that figure represents a 0.5 per cent variation in the budget. Anyone would accept that to come within $25 million in a budget of nearly $5 billion is a pretty good effort. The shadow minister talks about us being $70 million over budget, but he should remember that when we came to government in September 2008, the first thing the former Minister for Health said to me was that we were $100 million over budget—not $70 million. When we took office three months into the financial year, that is how much the Labor government was over budget in health. Mr B.S. Wyatt : And you ended up $370 million over budget. Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
Dr K.D. HAMES replied: (1)-(3) I do not know why the member keeps doing this. Obviously it is because the press are here and are listening. A matter of public interest is listed on the notice paper to discuss exactly these matters. That will give me the opportunity to discuss these things in full. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : The member does not even want to know the answer. I cannot tell the member about what happened at the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee because that is a cabinet subcommittee. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, I am not permitted to talk about things that happen at the EERC. What I can tell members is that we put forward the case that we needed additional funds and some additional funds were provided by Treasury. As it turned out, they were not the full amount that was required to cover the bills that we had to pay. As was pointed out by the director general in the Legislative Council’s estimates and financial operations committee, that figure represents a 0.5 per cent variation in the budget. Anyone would accept that to come within $25 million in a budget of nearly $5 billion is a pretty good effort. The shadow minister talks about us being $70 million over budget, but he should remember that when we came to government in September 2008, the first thing the former Minister for Health said to me was that we were $100 million over budget—not $70 million. When we took office three months into the financial year, that is how much the Labor government was over budget in health. Mr B.S. Wyatt : And you ended up $370 million over budget. Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
(1)-(3) I do not know why the member keeps doing this. Obviously it is because the press are here and are listening. A matter of public interest is listed on the notice paper to discuss exactly these matters. That will give me the opportunity to discuss these things in full. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : The member does not even want to know the answer. I cannot tell the member about what happened at the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee because that is a cabinet subcommittee. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, I am not permitted to talk about things that happen at the EERC. What I can tell members is that we put forward the case that we needed additional funds and some additional funds were provided by Treasury. As it turned out, they were not the full amount that was required to cover the bills that we had to pay. As was pointed out by the director general in the Legislative Council’s estimates and financial operations committee, that figure represents a 0.5 per cent variation in the budget. Anyone would accept that to come within $25 million in a budget of nearly $5 billion is a pretty good effort. The shadow minister talks about us being $70 million over budget, but he should remember that when we came to government in September 2008, the first thing the former Minister for Health said to me was that we were $100 million over budget—not $70 million. When we took office three months into the financial year, that is how much the Labor government was over budget in health. Mr B.S. Wyatt : And you ended up $370 million over budget. Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Dr K.D. HAMES : The member does not even want to know the answer. I cannot tell the member about what happened at the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee because that is a cabinet subcommittee. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, I am not permitted to talk about things that happen at the EERC. What I can tell members is that we put forward the case that we needed additional funds and some additional funds were provided by Treasury. As it turned out, they were not the full amount that was required to cover the bills that we had to pay. As was pointed out by the director general in the Legislative Council’s estimates and financial operations committee, that figure represents a 0.5 per cent variation in the budget. Anyone would accept that to come within $25 million in a budget of nearly $5 billion is a pretty good effort. The shadow minister talks about us being $70 million over budget, but he should remember that when we came to government in September 2008, the first thing the former Minister for Health said to me was that we were $100 million over budget—not $70 million. When we took office three months into the financial year, that is how much the Labor government was over budget in health. Mr B.S. Wyatt : And you ended up $370 million over budget. Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
Dr K.D. HAMES : The member does not even want to know the answer. I cannot tell the member about what happened at the Economic and Expenditure Reform Committee because that is a cabinet subcommittee. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows, I am not permitted to talk about things that happen at the EERC. What I can tell members is that we put forward the case that we needed additional funds and some additional funds were provided by Treasury. As it turned out, they were not the full amount that was required to cover the bills that we had to pay. As was pointed out by the director general in the Legislative Council’s estimates and financial operations committee, that figure represents a 0.5 per cent variation in the budget. Anyone would accept that to come within $25 million in a budget of nearly $5 billion is a pretty good effort. The shadow minister talks about us being $70 million over budget, but he should remember that when we came to government in September 2008, the first thing the former Minister for Health said to me was that we were $100 million over budget—not $70 million. When we took office three months into the financial year, that is how much the Labor government was over budget in health. Mr B.S. Wyatt : And you ended up $370 million over budget. Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
Mr B.S. Wyatt : And you ended up $370 million over budget. Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
Dr K.D. HAMES : No, we did not. The member should know better than that. The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
The SPEAKER : Member for Victoria Park, if you want to ask questions in this place, I would urge you to ask questions, not yell across the chamber. I formally call you for the first time. Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
Dr K.D. HAMES : The figure that we ended up over budget was not $370 million. The member should spend more time studying his notes. We were $180 million over budget. If he looked at the figures, he would see that an initial $370 million was provided. Some of the funds that were provided were outside commonwealth funds. Our extra expenditure amounted to $180 million, $110 million of which was provided by Treasury to cover that overrun. The health department was required to manage its expenditure in the three to four months leading up to the end of the financial year to try to recoup that amount. We were able to do that in some areas, but not all. At the end of the year, the shortfall was funded out of those funds. We have had that debate. I remind members again that, under the opposition’s watch, it had a shortfall of $100 million after three months, compared with our shortfall of $70 million after five months.
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.