❓ A parliamentary question regarding the history and accuracy of statements concerning the reimbursement of non-work related medical expenses for police officers in Western Australia, with the minister providing historical context and defending the policy.
AnsweredQoN 358Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the minister’s answer in the House last week concerning the reimbursement of non-work related medical expenses for police officers. (1) Is it not the case that the reimbursement of non-work related expenses was agreed to in 1979, and that since then it has been only reconfirmed? (2) Did the minister not mislead the House when he said this had been the situation since the Labor Party agreed to this benefit and “It was the member for Midland’s lot who first agreed to those conditions!”? Many of those conditions have been in place since the beginning of the century. (3) Will the minister now apologise for misleading the House? Mr PRINCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I thank the member for the chance to have another go. In 1837, when the sixty-third regiment of foot soldiers came to the colony, policing was carried out by the military. At that time, the British military looked after its own, particularly when they were injured in the course of duty, but also when they were injured off duty. That is the origin of this policy. In 1979, when the Liberal-Country Party coalition was in government, the policy was reviewed and restructured, and in 1989 it was completely rewritten by the then Labor Government. The new policy appropriately stated what should happen when a police officer is injured in the course of duty. I have no problem with that, nor do I have a problem with any other reimbursement for treatment that affects an officer’s ability to do his or her job. The question of breast reconstruction was raised. If a female police officer has suffered disfigurement or breast reduction as a result of an injury or an illness, I see no problem with the taxpayers paying for the appropriate reconstructive surgery. I am not talking about cosmetic surgery but about reconstructive surgery that will help that woman fulfil her functions as a police officer. The same is true for other injuries that occur when an officer is away from active policing, particularly when involved in community projects. The current policy, which was introduced by a Labor Government in 1989, covers all expenses and it has generally been used responsibly. Undoubtedly, a few officers who have that entitlement have used it to the limit. The entitlement is too broad. The Commissioner of Police and I have argued with the Police Union for the past two and a half years that the money spent looking after police officers who have suffered non-work related injuries, illnesses and so forth should be used to look after those who have an ongoing permanent disability as a direct result of undertaking their duties. Mrs Roberts interjected. Mr PRINCE: That is what should happen and that was the point the Police Union did not want raised. That is the matter before the public and it is a very reasonable proposition. This broad coverage should be reduced and the resultant funds used to help former police officers with a permanent disability. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I believe the member for Midland is trying to discover another way to get around the conventions of this place by using the words, “Tell us you are not lying.” That is the same as accusing a member of lying. The option open to the member is to use the word “untruthful”. I ask the member to withdraw. Mrs ROBERTS: I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed
(1) Is it not the case that the reimbursement of non-work related expenses was agreed to in 1979, and that since then it has been only reconfirmed? (2) Did the minister not mislead the House when he said this had been the situation since the Labor Party agreed to this benefit and “It was the member for Midland’s lot who first agreed to those conditions!”? Many of those conditions have been in place since the beginning of the century. (3) Will the minister now apologise for misleading the House? Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the chance to have another go. In 1837, when the sixty-third regiment of foot soldiers came to the colony, policing was carried out by the military. At that time, the British military looked after its own, particularly when they were injured in the course of duty, but also when they were injured off duty. That is the origin of this policy. In 1979, when the Liberal-Country Party coalition was in government, the policy was reviewed and restructured, and in 1989 it was completely rewritten by the then Labor Government. The new policy appropriately stated what should happen when a police officer is injured in the course of duty. I have no problem with that, nor do I have a problem with any other reimbursement for treatment that affects an officer’s ability to do his or her job. The question of breast reconstruction was raised. If a female police officer has suffered disfigurement or breast reduction as a result of an injury or an illness, I see no problem with the taxpayers paying for the appropriate reconstructive surgery. I am not talking about cosmetic surgery but about reconstructive surgery that will help that woman fulfil her functions as a police officer. The same is true for other injuries that occur when an officer is away from active policing, particularly when involved in community projects. The current policy, which was introduced by a Labor Government in 1989, covers all expenses and it has generally been used responsibly. Undoubtedly, a few officers who have that entitlement have used it to the limit. The entitlement is too broad. The Commissioner of Police and I have argued with the Police Union for the past two and a half years that the money spent looking after police officers who have suffered non-work related injuries, illnesses and so forth should be used to look after those who have an ongoing permanent disability as a direct result of undertaking their duties. Mrs Roberts interjected. Mr PRINCE: That is what should happen and that was the point the Police Union did not want raised. That is the matter before the public and it is a very reasonable proposition. This broad coverage should be reduced and the resultant funds used to help former police officers with a permanent disability. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I believe the member for Midland is trying to discover another way to get around the conventions of this place by using the words, “Tell us you are not lying.” That is the same as accusing a member of lying. The option open to the member is to use the word “untruthful”. I ask the member to withdraw. Mrs ROBERTS: I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed
(2) Did the minister not mislead the House when he said this had been the situation since the Labor Party agreed to this benefit and “It was the member for Midland’s lot who first agreed to those conditions!”? Many of those conditions have been in place since the beginning of the century. (3) Will the minister now apologise for misleading the House? Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the chance to have another go. In 1837, when the sixty-third regiment of foot soldiers came to the colony, policing was carried out by the military. At that time, the British military looked after its own, particularly when they were injured in the course of duty, but also when they were injured off duty. That is the origin of this policy. In 1979, when the Liberal-Country Party coalition was in government, the policy was reviewed and restructured, and in 1989 it was completely rewritten by the then Labor Government. The new policy appropriately stated what should happen when a police officer is injured in the course of duty. I have no problem with that, nor do I have a problem with any other reimbursement for treatment that affects an officer’s ability to do his or her job. The question of breast reconstruction was raised. If a female police officer has suffered disfigurement or breast reduction as a result of an injury or an illness, I see no problem with the taxpayers paying for the appropriate reconstructive surgery. I am not talking about cosmetic surgery but about reconstructive surgery that will help that woman fulfil her functions as a police officer. The same is true for other injuries that occur when an officer is away from active policing, particularly when involved in community projects. The current policy, which was introduced by a Labor Government in 1989, covers all expenses and it has generally been used responsibly. Undoubtedly, a few officers who have that entitlement have used it to the limit. The entitlement is too broad. The Commissioner of Police and I have argued with the Police Union for the past two and a half years that the money spent looking after police officers who have suffered non-work related injuries, illnesses and so forth should be used to look after those who have an ongoing permanent disability as a direct result of undertaking their duties. Mrs Roberts interjected. Mr PRINCE: That is what should happen and that was the point the Police Union did not want raised. That is the matter before the public and it is a very reasonable proposition. This broad coverage should be reduced and the resultant funds used to help former police officers with a permanent disability. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I believe the member for Midland is trying to discover another way to get around the conventions of this place by using the words, “Tell us you are not lying.” That is the same as accusing a member of lying. The option open to the member is to use the word “untruthful”. I ask the member to withdraw. Mrs ROBERTS: I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed
(3) Will the minister now apologise for misleading the House? Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the chance to have another go. In 1837, when the sixty-third regiment of foot soldiers came to the colony, policing was carried out by the military. At that time, the British military looked after its own, particularly when they were injured in the course of duty, but also when they were injured off duty. That is the origin of this policy. In 1979, when the Liberal-Country Party coalition was in government, the policy was reviewed and restructured, and in 1989 it was completely rewritten by the then Labor Government. The new policy appropriately stated what should happen when a police officer is injured in the course of duty. I have no problem with that, nor do I have a problem with any other reimbursement for treatment that affects an officer’s ability to do his or her job. The question of breast reconstruction was raised. If a female police officer has suffered disfigurement or breast reduction as a result of an injury or an illness, I see no problem with the taxpayers paying for the appropriate reconstructive surgery. I am not talking about cosmetic surgery but about reconstructive surgery that will help that woman fulfil her functions as a police officer. The same is true for other injuries that occur when an officer is away from active policing, particularly when involved in community projects. The current policy, which was introduced by a Labor Government in 1989, covers all expenses and it has generally been used responsibly. Undoubtedly, a few officers who have that entitlement have used it to the limit. The entitlement is too broad. The Commissioner of Police and I have argued with the Police Union for the past two and a half years that the money spent looking after police officers who have suffered non-work related injuries, illnesses and so forth should be used to look after those who have an ongoing permanent disability as a direct result of undertaking their duties. Mrs Roberts interjected. Mr PRINCE: That is what should happen and that was the point the Police Union did not want raised. That is the matter before the public and it is a very reasonable proposition. This broad coverage should be reduced and the resultant funds used to help former police officers with a permanent disability. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I believe the member for Midland is trying to discover another way to get around the conventions of this place by using the words, “Tell us you are not lying.” That is the same as accusing a member of lying. The option open to the member is to use the word “untruthful”. I ask the member to withdraw. Mrs ROBERTS: I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the chance to have another go. In 1837, when the sixty-third regiment of foot soldiers came to the colony, policing was carried out by the military. At that time, the British military looked after its own, particularly when they were injured in the course of duty, but also when they were injured off duty. That is the origin of this policy. In 1979, when the Liberal-Country Party coalition was in government, the policy was reviewed and restructured, and in 1989 it was completely rewritten by the then Labor Government. The new policy appropriately stated what should happen when a police officer is injured in the course of duty. I have no problem with that, nor do I have a problem with any other reimbursement for treatment that affects an officer’s ability to do his or her job. The question of breast reconstruction was raised. If a female police officer has suffered disfigurement or breast reduction as a result of an injury or an illness, I see no problem with the taxpayers paying for the appropriate reconstructive surgery. I am not talking about cosmetic surgery but about reconstructive surgery that will help that woman fulfil her functions as a police officer. The same is true for other injuries that occur when an officer is away from active policing, particularly when involved in community projects. The current policy, which was introduced by a Labor Government in 1989, covers all expenses and it has generally been used responsibly. Undoubtedly, a few officers who have that entitlement have used it to the limit. The entitlement is too broad. The Commissioner of Police and I have argued with the Police Union for the past two and a half years that the money spent looking after police officers who have suffered non-work related injuries, illnesses and so forth should be used to look after those who have an ongoing permanent disability as a direct result of undertaking their duties. Mrs Roberts interjected. Mr PRINCE: That is what should happen and that was the point the Police Union did not want raised. That is the matter before the public and it is a very reasonable proposition. This broad coverage should be reduced and the resultant funds used to help former police officers with a permanent disability. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I believe the member for Midland is trying to discover another way to get around the conventions of this place by using the words, “Tell us you are not lying.” That is the same as accusing a member of lying. The option open to the member is to use the word “untruthful”. I ask the member to withdraw. Mrs ROBERTS: I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed
(1)-(3) I thank the member for the chance to have another go. In 1837, when the sixty-third regiment of foot soldiers came to the colony, policing was carried out by the military. At that time, the British military looked after its own, particularly when they were injured in the course of duty, but also when they were injured off duty. That is the origin of this policy. In 1979, when the Liberal-Country Party coalition was in government, the policy was reviewed and restructured, and in 1989 it was completely rewritten by the then Labor Government. The new policy appropriately stated what should happen when a police officer is injured in the course of duty. I have no problem with that, nor do I have a problem with any other reimbursement for treatment that affects an officer’s ability to do his or her job. The question of breast reconstruction was raised. If a female police officer has suffered disfigurement or breast reduction as a result of an injury or an illness, I see no problem with the taxpayers paying for the appropriate reconstructive surgery. I am not talking about cosmetic surgery but about reconstructive surgery that will help that woman fulfil her functions as a police officer. The same is true for other injuries that occur when an officer is away from active policing, particularly when involved in community projects. The current policy, which was introduced by a Labor Government in 1989, covers all expenses and it has generally been used responsibly. Undoubtedly, a few officers who have that entitlement have used it to the limit. The entitlement is too broad. The Commissioner of Police and I have argued with the Police Union for the past two and a half years that the money spent looking after police officers who have suffered non-work related injuries, illnesses and so forth should be used to look after those who have an ongoing permanent disability as a direct result of undertaking their duties. Mrs Roberts interjected. Mr PRINCE: That is what should happen and that was the point the Police Union did not want raised. That is the matter before the public and it is a very reasonable proposition. This broad coverage should be reduced and the resultant funds used to help former police officers with a permanent disability. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I believe the member for Midland is trying to discover another way to get around the conventions of this place by using the words, “Tell us you are not lying.” That is the same as accusing a member of lying. The option open to the member is to use the word “untruthful”. I ask the member to withdraw. Mrs ROBERTS: I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed
The current policy, which was introduced by a Labor Government in 1989, covers all expenses and it has generally been used responsibly. Undoubtedly, a few officers who have that entitlement have used it to the limit. The entitlement is too broad. The Commissioner of Police and I have argued with the Police Union for the past two and a half years that the money spent looking after police officers who have suffered non-work related injuries, illnesses and so forth should be used to look after those who have an ongoing permanent disability as a direct result of undertaking their duties.
Mr PRINCE: That is what should happen and that was the point the Police Union did not want raised. That is the matter before the public and it is a very reasonable proposition. This broad coverage should be reduced and the resultant funds used to help former police officers with a permanent disability. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I believe the member for Midland is trying to discover another way to get around the conventions of this place by using the words, “Tell us you are not lying.” That is the same as accusing a member of lying. The option open to the member is to use the word “untruthful”. I ask the member to withdraw. Mrs ROBERTS: I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed
Mrs ROBERTS: I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed
(1) Is it not the case that the reimbursement of non-work related expenses was agreed to in 1979, and that since then it has been only reconfirmed? (2) Did the minister not mislead the House when he said this had been the situation since the Labor Party agreed to this benefit and “It was the member for Midland’s lot who first agreed to those conditions!”? Many of those conditions have been in place since the beginning of the century. (3) Will the minister now apologise for misleading the House? Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the chance to have another go. In 1837, when the sixty-third regiment of foot soldiers came to the colony, policing was carried out by the military. At that time, the British military looked after its own, particularly when they were injured in the course of duty, but also when they were injured off duty. That is the origin of this policy. In 1979, when the Liberal-Country Party coalition was in government, the policy was reviewed and restructured, and in 1989 it was completely rewritten by the then Labor Government. The new policy appropriately stated what should happen when a police officer is injured in the course of duty. I have no problem with that, nor do I have a problem with any other reimbursement for treatment that affects an officer’s ability to do his or her job. The question of breast reconstruction was raised. If a female police officer has suffered disfigurement or breast reduction as a result of an injury or an illness, I see no problem with the taxpayers paying for the appropriate reconstructive surgery. I am not talking about cosmetic surgery but about reconstructive surgery that will help that woman fulfil her functions as a police officer. The same is true for other injuries that occur when an officer is away from active policing, particularly when involved in community projects. The current policy, which was introduced by a Labor Government in 1989, covers all expenses and it has generally been used responsibly. Undoubtedly, a few officers who have that entitlement have used it to the limit. The entitlement is too broad. The Commissioner of Police and I have argued with the Police Union for the past two and a half years that the money spent looking after police officers who have suffered non-work related injuries, illnesses and so forth should be used to look after those who have an ongoing permanent disability as a direct result of undertaking their duties. Mrs Roberts interjected. Mr PRINCE: That is what should happen and that was the point the Police Union did not want raised. That is the matter before the public and it is a very reasonable proposition. This broad coverage should be reduced and the resultant funds used to help former police officers with a permanent disability. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I believe the member for Midland is trying to discover another way to get around the conventions of this place by using the words, “Tell us you are not lying.” That is the same as accusing a member of lying. The option open to the member is to use the word “untruthful”. I ask the member to withdraw. Mrs ROBERTS: I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed
(2) Did the minister not mislead the House when he said this had been the situation since the Labor Party agreed to this benefit and “It was the member for Midland’s lot who first agreed to those conditions!”? Many of those conditions have been in place since the beginning of the century. (3) Will the minister now apologise for misleading the House? Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the chance to have another go. In 1837, when the sixty-third regiment of foot soldiers came to the colony, policing was carried out by the military. At that time, the British military looked after its own, particularly when they were injured in the course of duty, but also when they were injured off duty. That is the origin of this policy. In 1979, when the Liberal-Country Party coalition was in government, the policy was reviewed and restructured, and in 1989 it was completely rewritten by the then Labor Government. The new policy appropriately stated what should happen when a police officer is injured in the course of duty. I have no problem with that, nor do I have a problem with any other reimbursement for treatment that affects an officer’s ability to do his or her job. The question of breast reconstruction was raised. If a female police officer has suffered disfigurement or breast reduction as a result of an injury or an illness, I see no problem with the taxpayers paying for the appropriate reconstructive surgery. I am not talking about cosmetic surgery but about reconstructive surgery that will help that woman fulfil her functions as a police officer. The same is true for other injuries that occur when an officer is away from active policing, particularly when involved in community projects. The current policy, which was introduced by a Labor Government in 1989, covers all expenses and it has generally been used responsibly. Undoubtedly, a few officers who have that entitlement have used it to the limit. The entitlement is too broad. The Commissioner of Police and I have argued with the Police Union for the past two and a half years that the money spent looking after police officers who have suffered non-work related injuries, illnesses and so forth should be used to look after those who have an ongoing permanent disability as a direct result of undertaking their duties. Mrs Roberts interjected. Mr PRINCE: That is what should happen and that was the point the Police Union did not want raised. That is the matter before the public and it is a very reasonable proposition. This broad coverage should be reduced and the resultant funds used to help former police officers with a permanent disability. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I believe the member for Midland is trying to discover another way to get around the conventions of this place by using the words, “Tell us you are not lying.” That is the same as accusing a member of lying. The option open to the member is to use the word “untruthful”. I ask the member to withdraw. Mrs ROBERTS: I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed
(3) Will the minister now apologise for misleading the House? Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the chance to have another go. In 1837, when the sixty-third regiment of foot soldiers came to the colony, policing was carried out by the military. At that time, the British military looked after its own, particularly when they were injured in the course of duty, but also when they were injured off duty. That is the origin of this policy. In 1979, when the Liberal-Country Party coalition was in government, the policy was reviewed and restructured, and in 1989 it was completely rewritten by the then Labor Government. The new policy appropriately stated what should happen when a police officer is injured in the course of duty. I have no problem with that, nor do I have a problem with any other reimbursement for treatment that affects an officer’s ability to do his or her job. The question of breast reconstruction was raised. If a female police officer has suffered disfigurement or breast reduction as a result of an injury or an illness, I see no problem with the taxpayers paying for the appropriate reconstructive surgery. I am not talking about cosmetic surgery but about reconstructive surgery that will help that woman fulfil her functions as a police officer. The same is true for other injuries that occur when an officer is away from active policing, particularly when involved in community projects. The current policy, which was introduced by a Labor Government in 1989, covers all expenses and it has generally been used responsibly. Undoubtedly, a few officers who have that entitlement have used it to the limit. The entitlement is too broad. The Commissioner of Police and I have argued with the Police Union for the past two and a half years that the money spent looking after police officers who have suffered non-work related injuries, illnesses and so forth should be used to look after those who have an ongoing permanent disability as a direct result of undertaking their duties. Mrs Roberts interjected. Mr PRINCE: That is what should happen and that was the point the Police Union did not want raised. That is the matter before the public and it is a very reasonable proposition. This broad coverage should be reduced and the resultant funds used to help former police officers with a permanent disability. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I believe the member for Midland is trying to discover another way to get around the conventions of this place by using the words, “Tell us you are not lying.” That is the same as accusing a member of lying. The option open to the member is to use the word “untruthful”. I ask the member to withdraw. Mrs ROBERTS: I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(3) I thank the member for the chance to have another go. In 1837, when the sixty-third regiment of foot soldiers came to the colony, policing was carried out by the military. At that time, the British military looked after its own, particularly when they were injured in the course of duty, but also when they were injured off duty. That is the origin of this policy. In 1979, when the Liberal-Country Party coalition was in government, the policy was reviewed and restructured, and in 1989 it was completely rewritten by the then Labor Government. The new policy appropriately stated what should happen when a police officer is injured in the course of duty. I have no problem with that, nor do I have a problem with any other reimbursement for treatment that affects an officer’s ability to do his or her job. The question of breast reconstruction was raised. If a female police officer has suffered disfigurement or breast reduction as a result of an injury or an illness, I see no problem with the taxpayers paying for the appropriate reconstructive surgery. I am not talking about cosmetic surgery but about reconstructive surgery that will help that woman fulfil her functions as a police officer. The same is true for other injuries that occur when an officer is away from active policing, particularly when involved in community projects. The current policy, which was introduced by a Labor Government in 1989, covers all expenses and it has generally been used responsibly. Undoubtedly, a few officers who have that entitlement have used it to the limit. The entitlement is too broad. The Commissioner of Police and I have argued with the Police Union for the past two and a half years that the money spent looking after police officers who have suffered non-work related injuries, illnesses and so forth should be used to look after those who have an ongoing permanent disability as a direct result of undertaking their duties. Mrs Roberts interjected. Mr PRINCE: That is what should happen and that was the point the Police Union did not want raised. That is the matter before the public and it is a very reasonable proposition. This broad coverage should be reduced and the resultant funds used to help former police officers with a permanent disability. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I believe the member for Midland is trying to discover another way to get around the conventions of this place by using the words, “Tell us you are not lying.” That is the same as accusing a member of lying. The option open to the member is to use the word “untruthful”. I ask the member to withdraw. Mrs ROBERTS: I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed
(1)-(3) I thank the member for the chance to have another go. In 1837, when the sixty-third regiment of foot soldiers came to the colony, policing was carried out by the military. At that time, the British military looked after its own, particularly when they were injured in the course of duty, but also when they were injured off duty. That is the origin of this policy. In 1979, when the Liberal-Country Party coalition was in government, the policy was reviewed and restructured, and in 1989 it was completely rewritten by the then Labor Government. The new policy appropriately stated what should happen when a police officer is injured in the course of duty. I have no problem with that, nor do I have a problem with any other reimbursement for treatment that affects an officer’s ability to do his or her job. The question of breast reconstruction was raised. If a female police officer has suffered disfigurement or breast reduction as a result of an injury or an illness, I see no problem with the taxpayers paying for the appropriate reconstructive surgery. I am not talking about cosmetic surgery but about reconstructive surgery that will help that woman fulfil her functions as a police officer. The same is true for other injuries that occur when an officer is away from active policing, particularly when involved in community projects. The current policy, which was introduced by a Labor Government in 1989, covers all expenses and it has generally been used responsibly. Undoubtedly, a few officers who have that entitlement have used it to the limit. The entitlement is too broad. The Commissioner of Police and I have argued with the Police Union for the past two and a half years that the money spent looking after police officers who have suffered non-work related injuries, illnesses and so forth should be used to look after those who have an ongoing permanent disability as a direct result of undertaking their duties. Mrs Roberts interjected. Mr PRINCE: That is what should happen and that was the point the Police Union did not want raised. That is the matter before the public and it is a very reasonable proposition. This broad coverage should be reduced and the resultant funds used to help former police officers with a permanent disability. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I believe the member for Midland is trying to discover another way to get around the conventions of this place by using the words, “Tell us you are not lying.” That is the same as accusing a member of lying. The option open to the member is to use the word “untruthful”. I ask the member to withdraw. Mrs ROBERTS: I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed
The current policy, which was introduced by a Labor Government in 1989, covers all expenses and it has generally been used responsibly. Undoubtedly, a few officers who have that entitlement have used it to the limit. The entitlement is too broad. The Commissioner of Police and I have argued with the Police Union for the past two and a half years that the money spent looking after police officers who have suffered non-work related injuries, illnesses and so forth should be used to look after those who have an ongoing permanent disability as a direct result of undertaking their duties.
Mr PRINCE: That is what should happen and that was the point the Police Union did not want raised. That is the matter before the public and it is a very reasonable proposition. This broad coverage should be reduced and the resultant funds used to help former police officers with a permanent disability. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I believe the member for Midland is trying to discover another way to get around the conventions of this place by using the words, “Tell us you are not lying.” That is the same as accusing a member of lying. The option open to the member is to use the word “untruthful”. I ask the member to withdraw. Mrs ROBERTS: I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed
Mrs ROBERTS: I withdraw. Questions without Notice Resumed
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.