❓ Question regarding the government's response to public sector corruption and attempts to obstruct it. The Treasurer responds by criticising the Leader of the Opposition's handling of a relevant report.
AnsweredQoN 1091Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
PUBLIC SECTOR —
CORRUPTION
1091. Ms M.M. QUIRK to the Treasurer:
This question is about an issue that
is dear to my heart. I refer to the McGowan Labor government's
commitment to ensure that there is confidence in our public sector by
implementing stronger financial accountability measures across government. Can
the Treasurer advise the house of any attempts to hinder or obstruct this
government's strong and rapid response to corruption within the public
sector?
CORRUPTION
1091. Ms M.M. QUIRK to the Treasurer:
This question is about an issue that
is dear to my heart. I refer to the McGowan Labor government's
commitment to ensure that there is confidence in our public sector by
implementing stronger financial accountability measures across government. Can
the Treasurer advise the house of any attempts to hinder or obstruct this
government's strong and rapid response to corruption within the public
sector?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Girrawheen,
as somebody who is certainly very interested in this topic, for that question.
I think it is fair to say that all
members support good government; all members, despite our disagreements from
time to time, want to see corruption in the public sector ferreted out,
disclosed, prosecuted and appropriately punished. The activities of Mr Whyte,
and potentially others, that we have heard about recently, are ones that I think
would have shocked us all. We are determined to not only deal with those, but
also get to the bottom of the environment in which corruption may thrive. There
are a range of reasons that is the case, and the Auditor General has
highlighted some of them.
Back in 2012, the former government
commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers, with the Department of Treasury, to
undertake what is termed a ''value for money audit'' into the
Housing Authority. These things cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, but they
generally give a fairly good series of recommendations to government; they also
highlight weaknesses, in particular, around governance and other reasons within
that agency. So I wrote, it being a document that was prepared by the previous
government, last Tuesday to the Leader of the Opposition requesting her
permission to have that document released, to which the Leader of the
Opposition replied on Wednesday. I want to quote this —
� I firmly believe that high levels
of integrity should be maintained across the public sector at all times, and
that policies and procedures should be consistently evolving to appropriately
manage risk and deal with reports of corruption or other forms of misconduct.
I therefore request that the Director
General, DPC officially provide to my office copies of the requested documents,
in line with long standing convention, so that appropriate consideration can be
given to their release.
I
thought that was reasonable enough. I wrote back on Thursday to the Leader of
the Opposition and said, ''Fine. That is what we will do.'' On Thursday afternoon, a copy of that
document was dropped off at the Leader of the Opposition's office, 40 metres from where I now stand.
That was on Thursday. Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday,
Tuesday—all that time I am assuming the Leader of the Opposition is
giving, and I quote, ''appropriate consideration'' to that
document. Members cannot imagine my surprise when on radio this morning, when
the Leader of the Opposition, after saying she was not going to release this
document for the broader consumption of the public of WA who funded this
report, was asked, ''Why is it you won't do that? Have you read
it?'', five days after she was given it, and I quote again, ''appropriate
consideration''. She said, ''No, I have not.'' Then when
she was asked why not, she replied, ''Well, because it is gathering dust
in a vault from seven years ago.'' That vault was the Leader of the
Opposition's executive assistant's out the front of her office.
Apparently in those five days, the Leader of the Opposition could not bring it
upon herself to read the document and make a decision about whether that should
be released. Every day that we, the Premier or myself, have made a response or
tried to make a response to this issue, the Leader of the Opposition has
critiqued it: It is not good enough; more needs to be done—more
inquiries, more reviews. The Leader of the Opposition was given the opportunity
to read a report, commissioned by her government, and she says, ''I'm
not going to read it. Why do I care what's in it?'' What is the
point of the royal commission that the Leader of the Opposition is demanding if
she is not going to read anything?
The Leader of the Opposition then
went on to say this in her response—it was an extraordinary interview.
For someone who is not good on detail, it was highlighted. The Attorney General
was quoted in making the point that he believes that 90 per cent of the funds
that were misused are likely to have been misused during the lifetime of the
previous government, to which the Leader of the Opposition responded —
He has provided no proof of that � he
has provided no proof of it ...
Again, I suspect if the Leader of
the Opposition read the odd document or two she might also have read the
transcript of the police prosecutor. I quote, according to my notes —
There is further investigation that
is being undertaken. The commencement of this operation was a covert police
investigation, and that investigation, of limited span, is what has resulted in
the charges currently before the court. The operation now moves to an overt
evidence-gathering stage, and there's evidence to indicate a further 20 to 25 million dollars
between the period of 2008 and the present date, facilitated by the false
invoicing of the Department of Communities, so that's in addition to
what's currently before the court.
It is not the Attorney General; it
is what has gone in the transcript in open court. I suggest that if the Leader
of the Opposition read the odd document, she might find these things.
This is the final point she made,
again, because the interview was a train wreck—when you are under
pressure it is amazing what you say. When the question was asked: ''Well,
you haven't read it''—I think those journalists who
asked the Leader of the Opposition this were stunned by the answer to the
questions: How come you know there is corruption? Why have you given it to the
CCC, but in those five days of appropriate consideration why have you not read
the document?—this is what the Leader of the Opposition said —
But, but well Nadia, I've
been given an understanding by people in my office, who have read that report
and were part of it �
Part of the report? Part of the
Housing Authority? Part of the corruption? I do not understand what that means,
but I suggest that that alone might even warrant the fact that the Leader of
the Opposition might want to pick it up and read it herself.
The final point the Leader of the
Opposition made, again to highlight the problem that the Leader of the
Opposition has with detail, is this —
Well, I'll tell you what �
the way to fix this problem is to actually give the Auditor-General more
funding to perform more audits and the Government isn't doing that.
Wrong again. Since 2007–08,
the Auditor General's budget has been cut only three times; that is, in
2012–13, 2015–16 and 2016–17. On average, the Auditor
General's budget under this government has risen by about 10.8 per cent,
and due to the decision made by the Premier just recently, I suspect it is
probably going to increase a bit to do some forensic audits.
I say to the Leader of the
Opposition: it is easy to go out there and run a cheap line—it easy to
do that—but if she is going to have some substance to what she is and
who she is, read documents, get involved and contribute, because at the moment
the cheap line and the lack of substance is there for all to see. The members
for Dawesville, Riverton and Kalgoorlie would have read that report; any MP who
is doing their job would have read that report before simply saying, ''We're
not going to release it.'' Release that document and let the people of
WA make their own decision on it and help the government respond to what has
clearly been a substantial case of corruption.
as somebody who is certainly very interested in this topic, for that question.
I think it is fair to say that all
members support good government; all members, despite our disagreements from
time to time, want to see corruption in the public sector ferreted out,
disclosed, prosecuted and appropriately punished. The activities of Mr Whyte,
and potentially others, that we have heard about recently, are ones that I think
would have shocked us all. We are determined to not only deal with those, but
also get to the bottom of the environment in which corruption may thrive. There
are a range of reasons that is the case, and the Auditor General has
highlighted some of them.
Back in 2012, the former government
commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers, with the Department of Treasury, to
undertake what is termed a ''value for money audit'' into the
Housing Authority. These things cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, but they
generally give a fairly good series of recommendations to government; they also
highlight weaknesses, in particular, around governance and other reasons within
that agency. So I wrote, it being a document that was prepared by the previous
government, last Tuesday to the Leader of the Opposition requesting her
permission to have that document released, to which the Leader of the
Opposition replied on Wednesday. I want to quote this —
� I firmly believe that high levels
of integrity should be maintained across the public sector at all times, and
that policies and procedures should be consistently evolving to appropriately
manage risk and deal with reports of corruption or other forms of misconduct.
I therefore request that the Director
General, DPC officially provide to my office copies of the requested documents,
in line with long standing convention, so that appropriate consideration can be
given to their release.
I
thought that was reasonable enough. I wrote back on Thursday to the Leader of
the Opposition and said, ''Fine. That is what we will do.'' On Thursday afternoon, a copy of that
document was dropped off at the Leader of the Opposition's office, 40 metres from where I now stand.
That was on Thursday. Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday,
Tuesday—all that time I am assuming the Leader of the Opposition is
giving, and I quote, ''appropriate consideration'' to that
document. Members cannot imagine my surprise when on radio this morning, when
the Leader of the Opposition, after saying she was not going to release this
document for the broader consumption of the public of WA who funded this
report, was asked, ''Why is it you won't do that? Have you read
it?'', five days after she was given it, and I quote again, ''appropriate
consideration''. She said, ''No, I have not.'' Then when
she was asked why not, she replied, ''Well, because it is gathering dust
in a vault from seven years ago.'' That vault was the Leader of the
Opposition's executive assistant's out the front of her office.
Apparently in those five days, the Leader of the Opposition could not bring it
upon herself to read the document and make a decision about whether that should
be released. Every day that we, the Premier or myself, have made a response or
tried to make a response to this issue, the Leader of the Opposition has
critiqued it: It is not good enough; more needs to be done—more
inquiries, more reviews. The Leader of the Opposition was given the opportunity
to read a report, commissioned by her government, and she says, ''I'm
not going to read it. Why do I care what's in it?'' What is the
point of the royal commission that the Leader of the Opposition is demanding if
she is not going to read anything?
The Leader of the Opposition then
went on to say this in her response—it was an extraordinary interview.
For someone who is not good on detail, it was highlighted. The Attorney General
was quoted in making the point that he believes that 90 per cent of the funds
that were misused are likely to have been misused during the lifetime of the
previous government, to which the Leader of the Opposition responded —
He has provided no proof of that � he
has provided no proof of it ...
Again, I suspect if the Leader of
the Opposition read the odd document or two she might also have read the
transcript of the police prosecutor. I quote, according to my notes —
There is further investigation that
is being undertaken. The commencement of this operation was a covert police
investigation, and that investigation, of limited span, is what has resulted in
the charges currently before the court. The operation now moves to an overt
evidence-gathering stage, and there's evidence to indicate a further 20 to 25 million dollars
between the period of 2008 and the present date, facilitated by the false
invoicing of the Department of Communities, so that's in addition to
what's currently before the court.
It is not the Attorney General; it
is what has gone in the transcript in open court. I suggest that if the Leader
of the Opposition read the odd document, she might find these things.
This is the final point she made,
again, because the interview was a train wreck—when you are under
pressure it is amazing what you say. When the question was asked: ''Well,
you haven't read it''—I think those journalists who
asked the Leader of the Opposition this were stunned by the answer to the
questions: How come you know there is corruption? Why have you given it to the
CCC, but in those five days of appropriate consideration why have you not read
the document?—this is what the Leader of the Opposition said —
But, but well Nadia, I've
been given an understanding by people in my office, who have read that report
and were part of it �
Part of the report? Part of the
Housing Authority? Part of the corruption? I do not understand what that means,
but I suggest that that alone might even warrant the fact that the Leader of
the Opposition might want to pick it up and read it herself.
The final point the Leader of the
Opposition made, again to highlight the problem that the Leader of the
Opposition has with detail, is this —
Well, I'll tell you what �
the way to fix this problem is to actually give the Auditor-General more
funding to perform more audits and the Government isn't doing that.
Wrong again. Since 2007–08,
the Auditor General's budget has been cut only three times; that is, in
2012–13, 2015–16 and 2016–17. On average, the Auditor
General's budget under this government has risen by about 10.8 per cent,
and due to the decision made by the Premier just recently, I suspect it is
probably going to increase a bit to do some forensic audits.
I say to the Leader of the
Opposition: it is easy to go out there and run a cheap line—it easy to
do that—but if she is going to have some substance to what she is and
who she is, read documents, get involved and contribute, because at the moment
the cheap line and the lack of substance is there for all to see. The members
for Dawesville, Riverton and Kalgoorlie would have read that report; any MP who
is doing their job would have read that report before simply saying, ''We're
not going to release it.'' Release that document and let the people of
WA make their own decision on it and help the government respond to what has
clearly been a substantial case of corruption.
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.