❓ Opposition MP questions the Premier regarding a previous answer on notice and its relation to the WA Inc Royal Commission's findings on government accountability and transparency during Question Time. The Premier defends his previous answer and dismisses any connection to the Royal Commission's criticism.
AnsweredQoN 724Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(b) does the Premier stand by his answer to question on notice No. 347 of 2001; (c) how does the Premier relate his answer to question on notice No. 347 of 2001 with what the WA Inc Royal Commission said in respect to Question time that ‘The manner of it’s conduct, the apparent acceptance of evasion and equivocation in providing answers, and the government manipulation of it for its own purposes, can leave the public with little reassurance that it serves the accountability purpose…’ (p3-13) ; and (d) is this an indication of how the Labor Government has learnt from its previous mistakes?
(c) how does the Premier relate his answer to question on notice No. 347 of 2001 with what the WA Inc Royal Commission said in respect to Question time that ‘The manner of it’s conduct, the apparent acceptance of evasion and equivocation in providing answers, and the government manipulation of it for its own purposes, can leave the public with little reassurance that it serves the accountability purpose…’ (p3-13) ; and (d) is this an indication of how the Labor Government has learnt from its previous mistakes?
(d) is this an indication of how the Labor Government has learnt from its previous mistakes?
(b) Yes. (c) There is no relationship. (d) Not applicable.
(c) There is no relationship. (d) Not applicable.
(d) Not applicable.
(c) how does the Premier relate his answer to question on notice No. 347 of 2001 with what the WA Inc Royal Commission said in respect to Question time that ‘The manner of it’s conduct, the apparent acceptance of evasion and equivocation in providing answers, and the government manipulation of it for its own purposes, can leave the public with little reassurance that it serves the accountability purpose…’ (p3-13) ; and (d) is this an indication of how the Labor Government has learnt from its previous mistakes?
(d) is this an indication of how the Labor Government has learnt from its previous mistakes?
(b) Yes. (c) There is no relationship. (d) Not applicable.
(c) There is no relationship. (d) Not applicable.
(d) Not applicable.
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
6 May 2003
Response time
70 days
(a) The Minister for Health utilised the services of Mr Daube from the Cancer Foundation to assist in the implementation of the recommendations of the Health Administrative Review Committee (HARC). Mr Daube was not remunerated for this work, however he requested that his employer be reimbursed for the time he would spend over the number of months required to implement the Committee's Report. The Government agreed to this request and a total charge of $5,000 (plus GST of $500) was decided upon as an appropriate reimbursement to the Foundation.
(b) Yes.
(c) There is no relationship.
(d) Not applicable.
(b) Yes.
(c) There is no relationship.
(d) Not applicable.
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.