A parliamentary question probes the Premier's reliance on a minister's word regarding allegations of unpaid superannuation, revealing the Premier defended the minister without independent verification.

AnsweredQoN 37Legislative Council
Asked
16 March 2006
Portfolio
Leader of the House representing the Premier

QuestionView source ↗

MINISTER FOR POLICE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES - STAFF SUPERANNUATION PAYMENTS
I refer the Premier to the Minister for Police and Emergency Services’ failure as a business owner to make timely superannuation payments for his former employees as required by law. (1) When the Premier and Mr D’Orazio discussed the allegations made by the former employees, did the minister provide the Premier with any evidence, such as his business accounts, to verify the minister’s assertions? (2) If not, does this mean that the Premier, in his defence of the minister, relied solely on the minister’s word? Hon KIM CHANCE

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) Yes.
(1) When the Premier and Mr D’Orazio discussed the allegations made by the former employees, did the minister provide the Premier with any evidence, such as his business accounts, to verify the minister’s assertions? (2) If not, does this mean that the Premier, in his defence of the minister, relied solely on the minister’s word? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) Yes.
(2) If not, does this mean that the Premier, in his defence of the minister, relied solely on the minister’s word? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) Yes.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) Yes.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1) No. (2) Yes.
(1) No. (2) Yes.
(2) Yes.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more