❓ A parliamentary question investigates the Department of Housing's purchase of Churchill Park Guest House as a women's refuge, focusing on discrepancies in asbestos reports and the department's response to potential omissions by Houspect building inspections.
AnsweredQoN 1067Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
CHURCHILL
PARK GUEST HOUSE — ASBESTOS CONTAMINATED MATERIAL
1067. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the
minister representing the Minister for Housing:
I refer to the condition assessment report on asbestos
contaminated material in the Churchill Park Guest House prepared by building
condition and compliance officers in May 2013 which found that, according to my
notes, ''Some of the data conflicts with the Building Condition
Assessment of 27 March 2012 carried out by Houspect building inspection
services.''
(1) Did the
department authorise the purchase of the property on the understanding that it
was suitable for use as a women's refuge?
(2) If so, was that understanding based on the Houspect
Building Inspections report?
(3) What
action did the department take or consider taking against Houspect when the May
2013 report showed that there were omissions about the presence of ACM in the
Houspect report?
(4) If no to (2), on what was that understanding based?
PARK GUEST HOUSE — ASBESTOS CONTAMINATED MATERIAL
1067. Hon SALLY TALBOT to the
minister representing the Minister for Housing:
I refer to the condition assessment report on asbestos
contaminated material in the Churchill Park Guest House prepared by building
condition and compliance officers in May 2013 which found that, according to my
notes, ''Some of the data conflicts with the Building Condition
Assessment of 27 March 2012 carried out by Houspect building inspection
services.''
(1) Did the
department authorise the purchase of the property on the understanding that it
was suitable for use as a women's refuge?
(2) If so, was that understanding based on the Houspect
Building Inspections report?
(3) What
action did the department take or consider taking against Houspect when the May
2013 report showed that there were omissions about the presence of ACM in the
Houspect report?
(4) If no to (2), on what was that understanding based?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this
question. On behalf of the Minister for Housing, the Department of Housing
advises —
(1) Yes, the department authorised it.
(2) Yes, it was based on the report.
(3) No action
was taken as the requested Houspect report was a standard building report that
did not require a full and thorough identification of asbestos contaminated
material.
(4) Not applicable.
question. On behalf of the Minister for Housing, the Department of Housing
advises —
(1) Yes, the department authorised it.
(2) Yes, it was based on the report.
(3) No action
was taken as the requested Houspect report was a standard building report that
did not require a full and thorough identification of asbestos contaminated
material.
(4) Not applicable.
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.