MEDICALLY RETIRED OFFICERS — REDRESS SCHEME
153. Hon CHARLES SMITH to the minister representing the
Minister for Police:
I refer to the police redress
(1) How did the
panel assess the mental health effects of being section 8-ed out of the Western
Australia Police Force?
(2) Was a mental health specialist
on the redress panel?
(3) How were financial sums
calculated in assessing each individual's redress claim?
(4) Why were some former officers
offered a greater redress than others?
(5) Will the minister table the
(6) Why does
accepting the redress offer depend on the terms and conditions stating that the
financial sum awarded will be claimed back should a further legal claim be made
against the government?
STEPHEN DAWSON replied:
I thank the honourable member for
some notice of the question. The following answer has been provided to me by
the Minister for Police.
the police redress scheme was established, an independent assessment panel was
appointed to ensure integrity and independence throughout the process. The IAP
members are Dr Karl O'Callaghan, former Western Australian Commissioner
of Police; Ms Susan Barrera, former director general of the Department of Communities, with significant
experience in previous redress schemes; and Ms Lilly Cvijic, a former Western
Australian serving police officer.
The IAP was provided with
de-identified information, including information obtained from the medical files of the applicant. Applicants were given the
opportunity to provide any additional medical information. Information
provided to the IAP was sourced from the applicant's health and welfare
medical file, which contained medical and specialist reports, information
supplied by the applicant and analysis thereof. The scheme has been managed and
assessments were made by the IAP.
The de-identified information was
assessed by the IAP individually throughout the process in order to determine what redress to offer each applicant. It
has never been the intent of the scheme that uniform equal payments be made to those applicants deemed eligible
for the scheme. The IAP assessed each offer subject to criteria it
determined based on an ex gratia–type payment to recognise the service
and acknowledge the circumstances of ill or injured former police officers.
This ensured that fair and equitable offers of redress, up to a maximum of $150
000, were made to eligible applicants.
Further advice will be sought about
providing the decision-making matrix. The scheme has, and remains, independent
so as to ensure its integrity, without interference or undue influence.
Procedural fairness has also been integral to the scheme. At each stage of the
scheme, applicants have had the opportunity to request a review by the IAP
based on process. Consistent with payments of this nature, should any further
claims be made, any payment made under the scheme would be taken into