❓ Opposition questions the Premier regarding the OSCAR contract investigation, timeline, and potential misleading of Parliament. The Premier deflects, highlighting the previous government's involvement and questioning the Opposition Leader's actions.
AnsweredQoN 120Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
OMBUDSMAN’S STATISTICS AND COMPLAINTS AUTOMATED REGISTER, INVESTIGATION
The Premier stated in the House yesterday that a report into the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register was completed in May 2000 by independent agencies. (1) Is it not the case that rather than independent agencies investigating the OSCAR contract, the only investigation carried out was completed by a public servant from the Department of Contract and Management Services dispatched by and reporting to the Ombudsman? (2) Is it not also the case that this investigation was completed and delivered to the Ombudsman in February 2000, before the OSCAR contract was finalised, rather than in May 2000 as the Premier told the House yesterday? (3) Despite the Premier’s comments in the House yesterday that the deputy Auditor General had reviewed the CAMS report and concluded that there were no significant audit issues, does the Premier now agree with the qualifications placed on the report by the Auditor General, as reported in today’s The Australian , that the OSCAR contract could have been better managed and would be again investigated by his office this financial year, with preparation already under way? (4) Does the Premier now agree that former Ombudsman information technology executive Chris Read had a point when he blew the whistle on up to $500 000 being spent on a system that does not work? (5) Is it not the case that the Premier misled this Parliament when he sought to cover up this issue? Dr GALLOP
The Premier stated in the House yesterday that a report into the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register was completed in May 2000 by independent agencies. (1) Is it not the case that rather than independent agencies investigating the OSCAR contract, the only investigation carried out was completed by a public servant from the Department of Contract and Management Services dispatched by and reporting to the Ombudsman? (2) Is it not also the case that this investigation was completed and delivered to the Ombudsman in February 2000, before the OSCAR contract was finalised, rather than in May 2000 as the Premier told the House yesterday? (3) Despite the Premier’s comments in the House yesterday that the deputy Auditor General had reviewed the CAMS report and concluded that there were no significant audit issues, does the Premier now agree with the qualifications placed on the report by the Auditor General, as reported in today’s The Australian , that the OSCAR contract could have been better managed and would be again investigated by his office this financial year, with preparation already under way? (4) Does the Premier now agree that former Ombudsman information technology executive Chris Read had a point when he blew the whistle on up to $500 000 being spent on a system that does not work? (5) Is it not the case that the Premier misled this Parliament when he sought to cover up this issue? Dr GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(5) I begin my answer by reminding the House of the timing of this project. This project was funded and undertaken by the previous Government. Why is the Leader of the Opposition so keen to raise an audit issue about a matter that occurred when he was part of the Government? That bothered me and then, like a thunderbolt, the answer struck me. It occurred like lightning when I asked myself who was responsible for the Department of Contract and Management Services at the time that it inquired into and reported on this matter in February. It was none other than the member for Hillarys. Has the Leader of the Opposition spoken to the member for Hillarys about this? Mr Barnett: Answer the question. Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
(1) Is it not the case that rather than independent agencies investigating the OSCAR contract, the only investigation carried out was completed by a public servant from the Department of Contract and Management Services dispatched by and reporting to the Ombudsman? (2) Is it not also the case that this investigation was completed and delivered to the Ombudsman in February 2000, before the OSCAR contract was finalised, rather than in May 2000 as the Premier told the House yesterday? (3) Despite the Premier’s comments in the House yesterday that the deputy Auditor General had reviewed the CAMS report and concluded that there were no significant audit issues, does the Premier now agree with the qualifications placed on the report by the Auditor General, as reported in today’s The Australian , that the OSCAR contract could have been better managed and would be again investigated by his office this financial year, with preparation already under way? (4) Does the Premier now agree that former Ombudsman information technology executive Chris Read had a point when he blew the whistle on up to $500 000 being spent on a system that does not work? (5) Is it not the case that the Premier misled this Parliament when he sought to cover up this issue? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(5) I begin my answer by reminding the House of the timing of this project. This project was funded and undertaken by the previous Government. Why is the Leader of the Opposition so keen to raise an audit issue about a matter that occurred when he was part of the Government? That bothered me and then, like a thunderbolt, the answer struck me. It occurred like lightning when I asked myself who was responsible for the Department of Contract and Management Services at the time that it inquired into and reported on this matter in February. It was none other than the member for Hillarys. Has the Leader of the Opposition spoken to the member for Hillarys about this? Mr Barnett: Answer the question. Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
(2) Is it not also the case that this investigation was completed and delivered to the Ombudsman in February 2000, before the OSCAR contract was finalised, rather than in May 2000 as the Premier told the House yesterday? (3) Despite the Premier’s comments in the House yesterday that the deputy Auditor General had reviewed the CAMS report and concluded that there were no significant audit issues, does the Premier now agree with the qualifications placed on the report by the Auditor General, as reported in today’s The Australian , that the OSCAR contract could have been better managed and would be again investigated by his office this financial year, with preparation already under way? (4) Does the Premier now agree that former Ombudsman information technology executive Chris Read had a point when he blew the whistle on up to $500 000 being spent on a system that does not work? (5) Is it not the case that the Premier misled this Parliament when he sought to cover up this issue? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(5) I begin my answer by reminding the House of the timing of this project. This project was funded and undertaken by the previous Government. Why is the Leader of the Opposition so keen to raise an audit issue about a matter that occurred when he was part of the Government? That bothered me and then, like a thunderbolt, the answer struck me. It occurred like lightning when I asked myself who was responsible for the Department of Contract and Management Services at the time that it inquired into and reported on this matter in February. It was none other than the member for Hillarys. Has the Leader of the Opposition spoken to the member for Hillarys about this? Mr Barnett: Answer the question. Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
(3) Despite the Premier’s comments in the House yesterday that the deputy Auditor General had reviewed the CAMS report and concluded that there were no significant audit issues, does the Premier now agree with the qualifications placed on the report by the Auditor General, as reported in today’s The Australian , that the OSCAR contract could have been better managed and would be again investigated by his office this financial year, with preparation already under way? (4) Does the Premier now agree that former Ombudsman information technology executive Chris Read had a point when he blew the whistle on up to $500 000 being spent on a system that does not work? (5) Is it not the case that the Premier misled this Parliament when he sought to cover up this issue? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(5) I begin my answer by reminding the House of the timing of this project. This project was funded and undertaken by the previous Government. Why is the Leader of the Opposition so keen to raise an audit issue about a matter that occurred when he was part of the Government? That bothered me and then, like a thunderbolt, the answer struck me. It occurred like lightning when I asked myself who was responsible for the Department of Contract and Management Services at the time that it inquired into and reported on this matter in February. It was none other than the member for Hillarys. Has the Leader of the Opposition spoken to the member for Hillarys about this? Mr Barnett: Answer the question. Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
(4) Does the Premier now agree that former Ombudsman information technology executive Chris Read had a point when he blew the whistle on up to $500 000 being spent on a system that does not work? (5) Is it not the case that the Premier misled this Parliament when he sought to cover up this issue? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(5) I begin my answer by reminding the House of the timing of this project. This project was funded and undertaken by the previous Government. Why is the Leader of the Opposition so keen to raise an audit issue about a matter that occurred when he was part of the Government? That bothered me and then, like a thunderbolt, the answer struck me. It occurred like lightning when I asked myself who was responsible for the Department of Contract and Management Services at the time that it inquired into and reported on this matter in February. It was none other than the member for Hillarys. Has the Leader of the Opposition spoken to the member for Hillarys about this? Mr Barnett: Answer the question. Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
(5) Is it not the case that the Premier misled this Parliament when he sought to cover up this issue? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(5) I begin my answer by reminding the House of the timing of this project. This project was funded and undertaken by the previous Government. Why is the Leader of the Opposition so keen to raise an audit issue about a matter that occurred when he was part of the Government? That bothered me and then, like a thunderbolt, the answer struck me. It occurred like lightning when I asked myself who was responsible for the Department of Contract and Management Services at the time that it inquired into and reported on this matter in February. It was none other than the member for Hillarys. Has the Leader of the Opposition spoken to the member for Hillarys about this? Mr Barnett: Answer the question. Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(5) I begin my answer by reminding the House of the timing of this project. This project was funded and undertaken by the previous Government. Why is the Leader of the Opposition so keen to raise an audit issue about a matter that occurred when he was part of the Government? That bothered me and then, like a thunderbolt, the answer struck me. It occurred like lightning when I asked myself who was responsible for the Department of Contract and Management Services at the time that it inquired into and reported on this matter in February. It was none other than the member for Hillarys. Has the Leader of the Opposition spoken to the member for Hillarys about this? Mr Barnett: Answer the question. Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
(1)-(5) I begin my answer by reminding the House of the timing of this project. This project was funded and undertaken by the previous Government. Why is the Leader of the Opposition so keen to raise an audit issue about a matter that occurred when he was part of the Government? That bothered me and then, like a thunderbolt, the answer struck me. It occurred like lightning when I asked myself who was responsible for the Department of Contract and Management Services at the time that it inquired into and reported on this matter in February. It was none other than the member for Hillarys. Has the Leader of the Opposition spoken to the member for Hillarys about this? Mr Barnett: Answer the question. Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
Mr Barnett: Answer the question. Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
(1) Is it not the case that rather than independent agencies investigating the OSCAR contract, the only investigation carried out was completed by a public servant from the Department of Contract and Management Services dispatched by and reporting to the Ombudsman? (2) Is it not also the case that this investigation was completed and delivered to the Ombudsman in February 2000, before the OSCAR contract was finalised, rather than in May 2000 as the Premier told the House yesterday? (3) Despite the Premier’s comments in the House yesterday that the deputy Auditor General had reviewed the CAMS report and concluded that there were no significant audit issues, does the Premier now agree with the qualifications placed on the report by the Auditor General, as reported in today’s The Australian , that the OSCAR contract could have been better managed and would be again investigated by his office this financial year, with preparation already under way? (4) Does the Premier now agree that former Ombudsman information technology executive Chris Read had a point when he blew the whistle on up to $500 000 being spent on a system that does not work? (5) Is it not the case that the Premier misled this Parliament when he sought to cover up this issue? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(5) I begin my answer by reminding the House of the timing of this project. This project was funded and undertaken by the previous Government. Why is the Leader of the Opposition so keen to raise an audit issue about a matter that occurred when he was part of the Government? That bothered me and then, like a thunderbolt, the answer struck me. It occurred like lightning when I asked myself who was responsible for the Department of Contract and Management Services at the time that it inquired into and reported on this matter in February. It was none other than the member for Hillarys. Has the Leader of the Opposition spoken to the member for Hillarys about this? Mr Barnett: Answer the question. Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
(2) Is it not also the case that this investigation was completed and delivered to the Ombudsman in February 2000, before the OSCAR contract was finalised, rather than in May 2000 as the Premier told the House yesterday? (3) Despite the Premier’s comments in the House yesterday that the deputy Auditor General had reviewed the CAMS report and concluded that there were no significant audit issues, does the Premier now agree with the qualifications placed on the report by the Auditor General, as reported in today’s The Australian , that the OSCAR contract could have been better managed and would be again investigated by his office this financial year, with preparation already under way? (4) Does the Premier now agree that former Ombudsman information technology executive Chris Read had a point when he blew the whistle on up to $500 000 being spent on a system that does not work? (5) Is it not the case that the Premier misled this Parliament when he sought to cover up this issue? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(5) I begin my answer by reminding the House of the timing of this project. This project was funded and undertaken by the previous Government. Why is the Leader of the Opposition so keen to raise an audit issue about a matter that occurred when he was part of the Government? That bothered me and then, like a thunderbolt, the answer struck me. It occurred like lightning when I asked myself who was responsible for the Department of Contract and Management Services at the time that it inquired into and reported on this matter in February. It was none other than the member for Hillarys. Has the Leader of the Opposition spoken to the member for Hillarys about this? Mr Barnett: Answer the question. Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
(3) Despite the Premier’s comments in the House yesterday that the deputy Auditor General had reviewed the CAMS report and concluded that there were no significant audit issues, does the Premier now agree with the qualifications placed on the report by the Auditor General, as reported in today’s The Australian , that the OSCAR contract could have been better managed and would be again investigated by his office this financial year, with preparation already under way? (4) Does the Premier now agree that former Ombudsman information technology executive Chris Read had a point when he blew the whistle on up to $500 000 being spent on a system that does not work? (5) Is it not the case that the Premier misled this Parliament when he sought to cover up this issue? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(5) I begin my answer by reminding the House of the timing of this project. This project was funded and undertaken by the previous Government. Why is the Leader of the Opposition so keen to raise an audit issue about a matter that occurred when he was part of the Government? That bothered me and then, like a thunderbolt, the answer struck me. It occurred like lightning when I asked myself who was responsible for the Department of Contract and Management Services at the time that it inquired into and reported on this matter in February. It was none other than the member for Hillarys. Has the Leader of the Opposition spoken to the member for Hillarys about this? Mr Barnett: Answer the question. Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
(4) Does the Premier now agree that former Ombudsman information technology executive Chris Read had a point when he blew the whistle on up to $500 000 being spent on a system that does not work? (5) Is it not the case that the Premier misled this Parliament when he sought to cover up this issue? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(5) I begin my answer by reminding the House of the timing of this project. This project was funded and undertaken by the previous Government. Why is the Leader of the Opposition so keen to raise an audit issue about a matter that occurred when he was part of the Government? That bothered me and then, like a thunderbolt, the answer struck me. It occurred like lightning when I asked myself who was responsible for the Department of Contract and Management Services at the time that it inquired into and reported on this matter in February. It was none other than the member for Hillarys. Has the Leader of the Opposition spoken to the member for Hillarys about this? Mr Barnett: Answer the question. Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
(5) Is it not the case that the Premier misled this Parliament when he sought to cover up this issue? Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(5) I begin my answer by reminding the House of the timing of this project. This project was funded and undertaken by the previous Government. Why is the Leader of the Opposition so keen to raise an audit issue about a matter that occurred when he was part of the Government? That bothered me and then, like a thunderbolt, the answer struck me. It occurred like lightning when I asked myself who was responsible for the Department of Contract and Management Services at the time that it inquired into and reported on this matter in February. It was none other than the member for Hillarys. Has the Leader of the Opposition spoken to the member for Hillarys about this? Mr Barnett: Answer the question. Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
Dr GALLOP replied: (1)-(5) I begin my answer by reminding the House of the timing of this project. This project was funded and undertaken by the previous Government. Why is the Leader of the Opposition so keen to raise an audit issue about a matter that occurred when he was part of the Government? That bothered me and then, like a thunderbolt, the answer struck me. It occurred like lightning when I asked myself who was responsible for the Department of Contract and Management Services at the time that it inquired into and reported on this matter in February. It was none other than the member for Hillarys. Has the Leader of the Opposition spoken to the member for Hillarys about this? Mr Barnett: Answer the question. Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
(1)-(5) I begin my answer by reminding the House of the timing of this project. This project was funded and undertaken by the previous Government. Why is the Leader of the Opposition so keen to raise an audit issue about a matter that occurred when he was part of the Government? That bothered me and then, like a thunderbolt, the answer struck me. It occurred like lightning when I asked myself who was responsible for the Department of Contract and Management Services at the time that it inquired into and reported on this matter in February. It was none other than the member for Hillarys. Has the Leader of the Opposition spoken to the member for Hillarys about this? Mr Barnett: Answer the question. Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
Mr Barnett: Answer the question. Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
Dr GALLOP: I will answer the question. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition a question: has he spoken to the member for Hillarys about this issue? Cover-up! If there is a cover-up on this matter, it occurred when the Leader of the Opposition was in government. Is the Leader of the Opposition claiming that the member for Hillarys, who was the responsible minister at the time, tried to cover this matter up? Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
Mr Barnett: I’m claiming that you misled this Parliament. Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
Dr GALLOP: We have no problem with the Auditor General looking into a matter that occurred in 1999-2000. We have no problem with that at all. Has the Leader of the Opposition raised this matter with the Auditor General? Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
Mr Barnett: No, I have not. I don’t need to, because you misled the Parliament. Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
Dr GALLOP: The Leader of the Opposition thinks this matter is so important, yet he has not even got off his backside and written a letter asking the Auditor General to look into it. The Leader of the Opposition knows only too well that the Office of the Auditor General reviewed the CAMS report. I am advised by the Auditor General that he will review the functionality of the Ombudsman’s statistics and complaints automated register as part of his normal audit routine for 2001. This side of the House has no problem with that. We believe in the independence of the Auditor General. Further, we will listen to what the Auditor General has to say about this matter, unlike the Leader of the Opposition when the report on computer services in the Education Department was handed down. The Government is clear on this issue. If the Auditor General feels the matter must be further examined, the Government is only too happy for him to do that and will listen to what he says about it. In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
In relation to the specific issue of the report that came down on 7 February 2000, I was advised that it was May. That was in fact when the report went across to the office of the Auditor General.
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.