❓ Hon Adele Farina questions the Minister for Mental Health regarding funding and timelines for the Bunbury subacute mental health facility, highlighting discrepancies in budget allocations and statements. The Minister's response clarifies the funding process and addresses concerns about operational cost allocations.
AnsweredQoN 503Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
SUBACUTE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY — BUNBURY
503. Hon ADELE FARINA to the minister
representing the Minister for Mental Health:
I refer to the subacute mental
health facility in Bunbury.
(1) Why did the
minister say earlier this year that funding for the facility needed to be
confirmed when $13 million had been allocated in the 2015–16 state
budget and therefore was already confirmed?
(2) Why did the
minister say that a further business case was required by the royalties for
regions program for formal confirmation of the funding when the Minister for
Regional Development is on the public record as saying that the funding was
confirmed in the 2015–16 state budget?
(3) What
deficiencies existed in the initial business case that required a further
business case to be submitted to the royalties for regions program?
(4) Will the minister table the two
business cases; and, if not, why not?
(5) If the
practical completion date of the project is in around 18 months and the
facility is expected to be opened three months post practical completion, why
has $1.2 million in operational costs been allocated in the 2016–17
budget when the facility will still be under construction and therefore not
operational?
503. Hon ADELE FARINA to the minister
representing the Minister for Mental Health:
I refer to the subacute mental
health facility in Bunbury.
(1) Why did the
minister say earlier this year that funding for the facility needed to be
confirmed when $13 million had been allocated in the 2015–16 state
budget and therefore was already confirmed?
(2) Why did the
minister say that a further business case was required by the royalties for
regions program for formal confirmation of the funding when the Minister for
Regional Development is on the public record as saying that the funding was
confirmed in the 2015–16 state budget?
(3) What
deficiencies existed in the initial business case that required a further
business case to be submitted to the royalties for regions program?
(4) Will the minister table the two
business cases; and, if not, why not?
(5) If the
practical completion date of the project is in around 18 months and the
facility is expected to be opened three months post practical completion, why
has $1.2 million in operational costs been allocated in the 2016–17
budget when the facility will still be under construction and therefore not
operational?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice
of the question.
(1) Funding for
the mental health subacute facility in Bunbury was allocated in the 2014–15
budget. A further business case was required in line with royalties for regions
processes before the funding could be formally confirmed in the 2015–16
budget.
(2) This is in line with the formal
processes required by the royalties for regions program.
(3) There were no
deficiencies. As noted above, this is the formal process required by the
royalties for regions program.
(4) Community
consultation will occur and appropriate documents will be released as part of
that process.
(5) This amount
was allocated to reflect the operational costs, which were anticipated for an
earlier completion date, and includes funding for a three-month transition
period that will occur post practical completion. The cash flow timing of these
allocations will be progressively reviewed as part of the government's
normal budgetary processes.
of the question.
(1) Funding for
the mental health subacute facility in Bunbury was allocated in the 2014–15
budget. A further business case was required in line with royalties for regions
processes before the funding could be formally confirmed in the 2015–16
budget.
(2) This is in line with the formal
processes required by the royalties for regions program.
(3) There were no
deficiencies. As noted above, this is the formal process required by the
royalties for regions program.
(4) Community
consultation will occur and appropriate documents will be released as part of
that process.
(5) This amount
was allocated to reflect the operational costs, which were anticipated for an
earlier completion date, and includes funding for a three-month transition
period that will occur post practical completion. The cash flow timing of these
allocations will be progressively reviewed as part of the government's
normal budgetary processes.
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.