❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding funding for men's health services in rural areas, specifically the Wheatbelt, Midwest, Goldfields, and the Men's Advisory Network (MAN). The Minister's response indicates a review of non-government organisation funding is underway, impacting future funding decisions.
AnsweredQoN 1564Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to Labor’s direction statement on men’s health, which highlights the chronic state of men’s health, particularly in rural areas, which the minister says is compounded by the lack of health services in country areas. (1) Will the minister therefore reinstate funding to the wheatbelt men’s health service, cut as a result of his review of funding to all non-government health services? (2) Will the minister give a commitment to continue the current funding arrangements for the mid west men’s health service and the goldfields men’s health service? (3) Will the minister give a commitment to continue the current funding arrangements for the men’s advisory network - MAN - beyond the $85 000 that has been allocated for 2003-04? (4) If not, why not? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I present the following answer - (1) The funding provided by the Department of Health to the wheatbelt men’s health service was not recurrent. The decision not to extend the funding period, or make the funding recurrent, was made for the reasons provided in the ministerial statement to Parliament on 16 September 2003. (2) All funding provided by the DOH to non-government organisations is being reviewed. The funding provided to the mid west and goldfields men’s health services is included in this review. No decision will be made about future funding until the review has been completed. (3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
(1) Will the minister therefore reinstate funding to the wheatbelt men’s health service, cut as a result of his review of funding to all non-government health services? (2) Will the minister give a commitment to continue the current funding arrangements for the mid west men’s health service and the goldfields men’s health service? (3) Will the minister give a commitment to continue the current funding arrangements for the men’s advisory network - MAN - beyond the $85 000 that has been allocated for 2003-04? (4) If not, why not? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I present the following answer - (1) The funding provided by the Department of Health to the wheatbelt men’s health service was not recurrent. The decision not to extend the funding period, or make the funding recurrent, was made for the reasons provided in the ministerial statement to Parliament on 16 September 2003. (2) All funding provided by the DOH to non-government organisations is being reviewed. The funding provided to the mid west and goldfields men’s health services is included in this review. No decision will be made about future funding until the review has been completed. (3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
(2) Will the minister give a commitment to continue the current funding arrangements for the mid west men’s health service and the goldfields men’s health service? (3) Will the minister give a commitment to continue the current funding arrangements for the men’s advisory network - MAN - beyond the $85 000 that has been allocated for 2003-04? (4) If not, why not? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I present the following answer - (1) The funding provided by the Department of Health to the wheatbelt men’s health service was not recurrent. The decision not to extend the funding period, or make the funding recurrent, was made for the reasons provided in the ministerial statement to Parliament on 16 September 2003. (2) All funding provided by the DOH to non-government organisations is being reviewed. The funding provided to the mid west and goldfields men’s health services is included in this review. No decision will be made about future funding until the review has been completed. (3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
(3) Will the minister give a commitment to continue the current funding arrangements for the men’s advisory network - MAN - beyond the $85 000 that has been allocated for 2003-04? (4) If not, why not? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I present the following answer - (1) The funding provided by the Department of Health to the wheatbelt men’s health service was not recurrent. The decision not to extend the funding period, or make the funding recurrent, was made for the reasons provided in the ministerial statement to Parliament on 16 September 2003. (2) All funding provided by the DOH to non-government organisations is being reviewed. The funding provided to the mid west and goldfields men’s health services is included in this review. No decision will be made about future funding until the review has been completed. (3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
(4) If not, why not? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I present the following answer - (1) The funding provided by the Department of Health to the wheatbelt men’s health service was not recurrent. The decision not to extend the funding period, or make the funding recurrent, was made for the reasons provided in the ministerial statement to Parliament on 16 September 2003. (2) All funding provided by the DOH to non-government organisations is being reviewed. The funding provided to the mid west and goldfields men’s health services is included in this review. No decision will be made about future funding until the review has been completed. (3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I present the following answer - (1) The funding provided by the Department of Health to the wheatbelt men’s health service was not recurrent. The decision not to extend the funding period, or make the funding recurrent, was made for the reasons provided in the ministerial statement to Parliament on 16 September 2003. (2) All funding provided by the DOH to non-government organisations is being reviewed. The funding provided to the mid west and goldfields men’s health services is included in this review. No decision will be made about future funding until the review has been completed. (3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I present the following answer - (1) The funding provided by the Department of Health to the wheatbelt men’s health service was not recurrent. The decision not to extend the funding period, or make the funding recurrent, was made for the reasons provided in the ministerial statement to Parliament on 16 September 2003. (2) All funding provided by the DOH to non-government organisations is being reviewed. The funding provided to the mid west and goldfields men’s health services is included in this review. No decision will be made about future funding until the review has been completed. (3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
(1) The funding provided by the Department of Health to the wheatbelt men’s health service was not recurrent. The decision not to extend the funding period, or make the funding recurrent, was made for the reasons provided in the ministerial statement to Parliament on 16 September 2003. (2) All funding provided by the DOH to non-government organisations is being reviewed. The funding provided to the mid west and goldfields men’s health services is included in this review. No decision will be made about future funding until the review has been completed. (3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
(2) All funding provided by the DOH to non-government organisations is being reviewed. The funding provided to the mid west and goldfields men’s health services is included in this review. No decision will be made about future funding until the review has been completed. (3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
(3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
(4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
(1) Will the minister therefore reinstate funding to the wheatbelt men’s health service, cut as a result of his review of funding to all non-government health services? (2) Will the minister give a commitment to continue the current funding arrangements for the mid west men’s health service and the goldfields men’s health service? (3) Will the minister give a commitment to continue the current funding arrangements for the men’s advisory network - MAN - beyond the $85 000 that has been allocated for 2003-04? (4) If not, why not? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I present the following answer - (1) The funding provided by the Department of Health to the wheatbelt men’s health service was not recurrent. The decision not to extend the funding period, or make the funding recurrent, was made for the reasons provided in the ministerial statement to Parliament on 16 September 2003. (2) All funding provided by the DOH to non-government organisations is being reviewed. The funding provided to the mid west and goldfields men’s health services is included in this review. No decision will be made about future funding until the review has been completed. (3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
(2) Will the minister give a commitment to continue the current funding arrangements for the mid west men’s health service and the goldfields men’s health service? (3) Will the minister give a commitment to continue the current funding arrangements for the men’s advisory network - MAN - beyond the $85 000 that has been allocated for 2003-04? (4) If not, why not? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I present the following answer - (1) The funding provided by the Department of Health to the wheatbelt men’s health service was not recurrent. The decision not to extend the funding period, or make the funding recurrent, was made for the reasons provided in the ministerial statement to Parliament on 16 September 2003. (2) All funding provided by the DOH to non-government organisations is being reviewed. The funding provided to the mid west and goldfields men’s health services is included in this review. No decision will be made about future funding until the review has been completed. (3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
(3) Will the minister give a commitment to continue the current funding arrangements for the men’s advisory network - MAN - beyond the $85 000 that has been allocated for 2003-04? (4) If not, why not? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I present the following answer - (1) The funding provided by the Department of Health to the wheatbelt men’s health service was not recurrent. The decision not to extend the funding period, or make the funding recurrent, was made for the reasons provided in the ministerial statement to Parliament on 16 September 2003. (2) All funding provided by the DOH to non-government organisations is being reviewed. The funding provided to the mid west and goldfields men’s health services is included in this review. No decision will be made about future funding until the review has been completed. (3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
(4) If not, why not? Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I present the following answer - (1) The funding provided by the Department of Health to the wheatbelt men’s health service was not recurrent. The decision not to extend the funding period, or make the funding recurrent, was made for the reasons provided in the ministerial statement to Parliament on 16 September 2003. (2) All funding provided by the DOH to non-government organisations is being reviewed. The funding provided to the mid west and goldfields men’s health services is included in this review. No decision will be made about future funding until the review has been completed. (3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
Hon GRAHAM GIFFARD replied: I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I present the following answer - (1) The funding provided by the Department of Health to the wheatbelt men’s health service was not recurrent. The decision not to extend the funding period, or make the funding recurrent, was made for the reasons provided in the ministerial statement to Parliament on 16 September 2003. (2) All funding provided by the DOH to non-government organisations is being reviewed. The funding provided to the mid west and goldfields men’s health services is included in this review. No decision will be made about future funding until the review has been completed. (3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
I thank the member for some notice of this question. On behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, I present the following answer - (1) The funding provided by the Department of Health to the wheatbelt men’s health service was not recurrent. The decision not to extend the funding period, or make the funding recurrent, was made for the reasons provided in the ministerial statement to Parliament on 16 September 2003. (2) All funding provided by the DOH to non-government organisations is being reviewed. The funding provided to the mid west and goldfields men’s health services is included in this review. No decision will be made about future funding until the review has been completed. (3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
(1) The funding provided by the Department of Health to the wheatbelt men’s health service was not recurrent. The decision not to extend the funding period, or make the funding recurrent, was made for the reasons provided in the ministerial statement to Parliament on 16 September 2003. (2) All funding provided by the DOH to non-government organisations is being reviewed. The funding provided to the mid west and goldfields men’s health services is included in this review. No decision will be made about future funding until the review has been completed. (3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
(2) All funding provided by the DOH to non-government organisations is being reviewed. The funding provided to the mid west and goldfields men’s health services is included in this review. No decision will be made about future funding until the review has been completed. (3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
(3) Current funding to the men’s advisory network is also included in the review of non-government funding. Until the review is completed, no decision will be made about the future funding of the men’s advisory network. (4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
(4) Any commitment to future funding would pre-empt the outcome of the review process.
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.