Report 18

Opinions on Ministerial Notifications

Ministerial decision not to provide information on the maintenance backlog of police facilities to the Estimates and Financial Operations Committee

Opinion

The decision by Minister Harvey not to provide Parliament with information about the dollar value of maintenance backlog for police facilities in 2014-15 by year was not reasonable and therefore not appropriate.

Background

On 7 December 2015, as part of the 2014-15 Estimates and Financial Operations Committee annual report hearings, Hon Ken Travers MLC, asked the Minister for Police for the following information (additional question 30):

What is the dollar value of maintenance backlog for police facilities in 2014/15 by year? E.g. 1 year behind, 2 years behind, 3 years behind.

On 13 January 2016, the Minister declined to give this information, replying:

This information is a component of the WA Police strategic asset plan, which is Cabinet-in-confidence and, therefore, not able to be released.

The Committee also asked:

How much of that work would be related to improving security at police facilities because of heightened security concerns?

The Minister gave this information, replying:

$68 million.

On 11 March 2016, the Auditor General received the Minister’s notification of her decision not to provide the information requested in additional question 30 in accordance with section 82 of the FM Act.

Key findings

The decision by the Minister not to provide the requested information was not reasonable and therefore not appropriate. We noted that the Minister drew upon a recommendation and advice from Western Australia Police (Police). However, this advice was not correct or complete.

The Minister properly sought advice from the Police before responding to the question. Police consulted with the Department of Treasury and the Department of the Premier and Cabinet before making its recommendation to the Minister.

Police recommended that the information not be provided to Parliament as it was part of the strategic asset plan (SAP) which Police believed was Cabinet-in-confidence (CIC). Police accepted Treasury’s advice based on existing protocols for the handling of SAPs. However, we note that the information sought was not contained in the SAP.

Police, in advising the Minister, provided limited analysis and did not consider all key facts. It did not consider:

  • That the dollar value of the maintenance backlog in 2014-15 by year is not included in Police’s SAP, although we found that the SAP contained a statement referring to the previous year’s total estimated maintenance backlog. Police asserted that its response was in the overall context of discussion at the hearing that preceded the additional question 30. We confirmed from Hansard that the preceding discussion was about SAP and whether Police could provide a copy of its SAP. However, in keeping this context in mind, Police lost sight of the actual question asked which was about the dollar value of maintenance backlog.
  • Whether the information would reveal the deliberations and decisions of Cabinet.
  • If part or all of the information is publicly available, or readily available within Police or easily accessible by its staff. For example, some of the maintenance information is available in registers at each police facility.
  • If the recommendation was inconsistent with another recommendation given to the Minister that she should provide related information sought in a separate request from Parliament. This separate request related to maintenance work required because of heightened security concerns.

We recommend that:

  1. Police review and enhance its procedures for parliamentary questions to ensure that analysis and any expert advice is documented, and key details are included in its recommendation to the Minister.

Response from Western Australia Police

While it is noted that the supplementary question that the Section 82 notification related to was technically on the dollar value of the maintenance backlog, WA Police maintains that the context of the discussion leading to the question was solely around the release of the SAP, making the SAP and the supplementary question inextricably linked. Furthermore, as the department’s maintenance requirements, which are referred to in the SAP, are linked to the dollar value of any backlog, our recommendation to the Minister would likely be the same.

On this basis, we are of the view that an appropriate level of analysis and consideration of the key facts was conducted.

In relation to the views expressed concerning whether the SAP was Cabinet in confidence, WA Police has a limited role in assessing whether this is the case. That is a role of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and the Treasury Department, from which WA Police sought advice.

Notwithstanding the above points, WA Police agrees to review its procedures in relation to parliamentary questions and requests for supplementary information.

Back to Top