❓ Barnett questions Gallop about the former Health Minister's inaction regarding alleged fraud within WAACCHO. Gallop defends his government's actions, highlighting the referral to police and contrasting it with the previous government's inaction.
AnsweredQoN 892Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the internal ministerial briefing note of 19 December 2001 from the Director General of the Department of Health to former Minister for Health Bob Kucera, alerting the minister to - . . . a prima facie indication that fraudulent and other dishonest behaviour involving members of WAACCHO may have occurred and may be actionable . . . pursuant to which the minister failed to take further action. (1) Has the Premier asked the former Minister for Health for an explanation as to why he failed to act on the allegations, and why no action was taken until the matter was referred to police by the department in April this year, some 16 months later? (2) Given the former Minister for Health’s history as a former senior police officer, and as a minister of the Crown, does the Premier recognise the deficiency in a minister who does not know what action to take in the face of apparent fraud? (3) Does the Premier concede that the minister should have taken immediate action to refer the matter to the police and the Department of Treasury and Finance, and that the failure of the minister to do so constituted a dereliction of his duty as a minister? Dr G.I. GALLOP
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) The premise underlying the question from the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. He continues to say in his public comments on this matter that nothing was done in response to those allegations. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, as indeed was contained in another part of his question, that this matter was referred to the police in April 2003. That contrasts with what was done under the previous Government, which was nothing. Mr C.J. Barnett: Table the documents, if you’ve got any. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The documents have been tabled. We will find it interesting to debate the matter of public interest later today. The Department of Health and, indeed, the former Minister for Health have both acknowledged that the time taken to refer the matter to the Police Service was less than adequate. What is important is that the Government referred it to the police. The Government will be very happy to have the debate on all the issues under this heading when I will go through every item of action taken by the Government since the matter was brought to its attention.
(1) Has the Premier asked the former Minister for Health for an explanation as to why he failed to act on the allegations, and why no action was taken until the matter was referred to police by the department in April this year, some 16 months later? (2) Given the former Minister for Health’s history as a former senior police officer, and as a minister of the Crown, does the Premier recognise the deficiency in a minister who does not know what action to take in the face of apparent fraud? (3) Does the Premier concede that the minister should have taken immediate action to refer the matter to the police and the Department of Treasury and Finance, and that the failure of the minister to do so constituted a dereliction of his duty as a minister? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) The premise underlying the question from the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. He continues to say in his public comments on this matter that nothing was done in response to those allegations. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, as indeed was contained in another part of his question, that this matter was referred to the police in April 2003. That contrasts with what was done under the previous Government, which was nothing. Mr C.J. Barnett: Table the documents, if you’ve got any. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The documents have been tabled. We will find it interesting to debate the matter of public interest later today. The Department of Health and, indeed, the former Minister for Health have both acknowledged that the time taken to refer the matter to the Police Service was less than adequate. What is important is that the Government referred it to the police. The Government will be very happy to have the debate on all the issues under this heading when I will go through every item of action taken by the Government since the matter was brought to its attention.
(2) Given the former Minister for Health’s history as a former senior police officer, and as a minister of the Crown, does the Premier recognise the deficiency in a minister who does not know what action to take in the face of apparent fraud? (3) Does the Premier concede that the minister should have taken immediate action to refer the matter to the police and the Department of Treasury and Finance, and that the failure of the minister to do so constituted a dereliction of his duty as a minister? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) The premise underlying the question from the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. He continues to say in his public comments on this matter that nothing was done in response to those allegations. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, as indeed was contained in another part of his question, that this matter was referred to the police in April 2003. That contrasts with what was done under the previous Government, which was nothing. Mr C.J. Barnett: Table the documents, if you’ve got any. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The documents have been tabled. We will find it interesting to debate the matter of public interest later today. The Department of Health and, indeed, the former Minister for Health have both acknowledged that the time taken to refer the matter to the Police Service was less than adequate. What is important is that the Government referred it to the police. The Government will be very happy to have the debate on all the issues under this heading when I will go through every item of action taken by the Government since the matter was brought to its attention.
(3) Does the Premier concede that the minister should have taken immediate action to refer the matter to the police and the Department of Treasury and Finance, and that the failure of the minister to do so constituted a dereliction of his duty as a minister? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) The premise underlying the question from the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. He continues to say in his public comments on this matter that nothing was done in response to those allegations. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, as indeed was contained in another part of his question, that this matter was referred to the police in April 2003. That contrasts with what was done under the previous Government, which was nothing. Mr C.J. Barnett: Table the documents, if you’ve got any. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The documents have been tabled. We will find it interesting to debate the matter of public interest later today. The Department of Health and, indeed, the former Minister for Health have both acknowledged that the time taken to refer the matter to the Police Service was less than adequate. What is important is that the Government referred it to the police. The Government will be very happy to have the debate on all the issues under this heading when I will go through every item of action taken by the Government since the matter was brought to its attention.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) The premise underlying the question from the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. He continues to say in his public comments on this matter that nothing was done in response to those allegations. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, as indeed was contained in another part of his question, that this matter was referred to the police in April 2003. That contrasts with what was done under the previous Government, which was nothing. Mr C.J. Barnett: Table the documents, if you’ve got any. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The documents have been tabled. We will find it interesting to debate the matter of public interest later today. The Department of Health and, indeed, the former Minister for Health have both acknowledged that the time taken to refer the matter to the Police Service was less than adequate. What is important is that the Government referred it to the police. The Government will be very happy to have the debate on all the issues under this heading when I will go through every item of action taken by the Government since the matter was brought to its attention.
(1)-(3) The premise underlying the question from the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. He continues to say in his public comments on this matter that nothing was done in response to those allegations. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, as indeed was contained in another part of his question, that this matter was referred to the police in April 2003. That contrasts with what was done under the previous Government, which was nothing. Mr C.J. Barnett: Table the documents, if you’ve got any. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The documents have been tabled. We will find it interesting to debate the matter of public interest later today. The Department of Health and, indeed, the former Minister for Health have both acknowledged that the time taken to refer the matter to the Police Service was less than adequate. What is important is that the Government referred it to the police. The Government will be very happy to have the debate on all the issues under this heading when I will go through every item of action taken by the Government since the matter was brought to its attention.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Table the documents, if you’ve got any. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The documents have been tabled. We will find it interesting to debate the matter of public interest later today. The Department of Health and, indeed, the former Minister for Health have both acknowledged that the time taken to refer the matter to the Police Service was less than adequate. What is important is that the Government referred it to the police. The Government will be very happy to have the debate on all the issues under this heading when I will go through every item of action taken by the Government since the matter was brought to its attention.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: The documents have been tabled. We will find it interesting to debate the matter of public interest later today. The Department of Health and, indeed, the former Minister for Health have both acknowledged that the time taken to refer the matter to the Police Service was less than adequate. What is important is that the Government referred it to the police. The Government will be very happy to have the debate on all the issues under this heading when I will go through every item of action taken by the Government since the matter was brought to its attention.
(1) Has the Premier asked the former Minister for Health for an explanation as to why he failed to act on the allegations, and why no action was taken until the matter was referred to police by the department in April this year, some 16 months later? (2) Given the former Minister for Health’s history as a former senior police officer, and as a minister of the Crown, does the Premier recognise the deficiency in a minister who does not know what action to take in the face of apparent fraud? (3) Does the Premier concede that the minister should have taken immediate action to refer the matter to the police and the Department of Treasury and Finance, and that the failure of the minister to do so constituted a dereliction of his duty as a minister? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) The premise underlying the question from the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. He continues to say in his public comments on this matter that nothing was done in response to those allegations. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, as indeed was contained in another part of his question, that this matter was referred to the police in April 2003. That contrasts with what was done under the previous Government, which was nothing. Mr C.J. Barnett: Table the documents, if you’ve got any. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The documents have been tabled. We will find it interesting to debate the matter of public interest later today. The Department of Health and, indeed, the former Minister for Health have both acknowledged that the time taken to refer the matter to the Police Service was less than adequate. What is important is that the Government referred it to the police. The Government will be very happy to have the debate on all the issues under this heading when I will go through every item of action taken by the Government since the matter was brought to its attention.
(2) Given the former Minister for Health’s history as a former senior police officer, and as a minister of the Crown, does the Premier recognise the deficiency in a minister who does not know what action to take in the face of apparent fraud? (3) Does the Premier concede that the minister should have taken immediate action to refer the matter to the police and the Department of Treasury and Finance, and that the failure of the minister to do so constituted a dereliction of his duty as a minister? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) The premise underlying the question from the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. He continues to say in his public comments on this matter that nothing was done in response to those allegations. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, as indeed was contained in another part of his question, that this matter was referred to the police in April 2003. That contrasts with what was done under the previous Government, which was nothing. Mr C.J. Barnett: Table the documents, if you’ve got any. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The documents have been tabled. We will find it interesting to debate the matter of public interest later today. The Department of Health and, indeed, the former Minister for Health have both acknowledged that the time taken to refer the matter to the Police Service was less than adequate. What is important is that the Government referred it to the police. The Government will be very happy to have the debate on all the issues under this heading when I will go through every item of action taken by the Government since the matter was brought to its attention.
(3) Does the Premier concede that the minister should have taken immediate action to refer the matter to the police and the Department of Treasury and Finance, and that the failure of the minister to do so constituted a dereliction of his duty as a minister? Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) The premise underlying the question from the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. He continues to say in his public comments on this matter that nothing was done in response to those allegations. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, as indeed was contained in another part of his question, that this matter was referred to the police in April 2003. That contrasts with what was done under the previous Government, which was nothing. Mr C.J. Barnett: Table the documents, if you’ve got any. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The documents have been tabled. We will find it interesting to debate the matter of public interest later today. The Department of Health and, indeed, the former Minister for Health have both acknowledged that the time taken to refer the matter to the Police Service was less than adequate. What is important is that the Government referred it to the police. The Government will be very happy to have the debate on all the issues under this heading when I will go through every item of action taken by the Government since the matter was brought to its attention.
Dr G.I. GALLOP replied: (1)-(3) The premise underlying the question from the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. He continues to say in his public comments on this matter that nothing was done in response to those allegations. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, as indeed was contained in another part of his question, that this matter was referred to the police in April 2003. That contrasts with what was done under the previous Government, which was nothing. Mr C.J. Barnett: Table the documents, if you’ve got any. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The documents have been tabled. We will find it interesting to debate the matter of public interest later today. The Department of Health and, indeed, the former Minister for Health have both acknowledged that the time taken to refer the matter to the Police Service was less than adequate. What is important is that the Government referred it to the police. The Government will be very happy to have the debate on all the issues under this heading when I will go through every item of action taken by the Government since the matter was brought to its attention.
(1)-(3) The premise underlying the question from the Leader of the Opposition is wrong. He continues to say in his public comments on this matter that nothing was done in response to those allegations. I remind the Leader of the Opposition, as indeed was contained in another part of his question, that this matter was referred to the police in April 2003. That contrasts with what was done under the previous Government, which was nothing. Mr C.J. Barnett: Table the documents, if you’ve got any. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The documents have been tabled. We will find it interesting to debate the matter of public interest later today. The Department of Health and, indeed, the former Minister for Health have both acknowledged that the time taken to refer the matter to the Police Service was less than adequate. What is important is that the Government referred it to the police. The Government will be very happy to have the debate on all the issues under this heading when I will go through every item of action taken by the Government since the matter was brought to its attention.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Table the documents, if you’ve got any. Dr G.I. GALLOP: The documents have been tabled. We will find it interesting to debate the matter of public interest later today. The Department of Health and, indeed, the former Minister for Health have both acknowledged that the time taken to refer the matter to the Police Service was less than adequate. What is important is that the Government referred it to the police. The Government will be very happy to have the debate on all the issues under this heading when I will go through every item of action taken by the Government since the matter was brought to its attention.
Dr G.I. GALLOP: The documents have been tabled. We will find it interesting to debate the matter of public interest later today. The Department of Health and, indeed, the former Minister for Health have both acknowledged that the time taken to refer the matter to the Police Service was less than adequate. What is important is that the Government referred it to the police. The Government will be very happy to have the debate on all the issues under this heading when I will go through every item of action taken by the Government since the matter was brought to its attention.
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.