❓ Mrs Roberts questions the adequacy of act-of-grace payments to Kimberley Ultramarathon victims, given government involvement and failings. Minister Hames defends the payment amount, citing no legal obligation and participant responsibility.
AnsweredQoN 700Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
KIMBERLEY ULTRAMARATHON — ACT-OF-GRACE
PAYMENTS
700. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS to the Minister for Tourism:
I refer to the minister's recent ministerial
statement on the Kimberley Ultramarathon.
(1) Was any
contact made with Turia Pitt or Kate Sanderson or their lawyers in the last
three months to discuss the act-of-grace payments; and, if so, what details can
the minister provide of any contact made?
(2) Given
that the Kimberley Ultramarathon was not a private event on private land but a
government-sponsored event on government land, given the minister's
comments today regarding the uncertainty of any other act of legal redress
available to them and given the various serious findings of failings of
government agencies, particularly the minister's agency Eventscorp, how
is it that the minister thinks that just $450 000 is an adequate payment?
PAYMENTS
700. Mrs M.H. ROBERTS to the Minister for Tourism:
I refer to the minister's recent ministerial
statement on the Kimberley Ultramarathon.
(1) Was any
contact made with Turia Pitt or Kate Sanderson or their lawyers in the last
three months to discuss the act-of-grace payments; and, if so, what details can
the minister provide of any contact made?
(2) Given
that the Kimberley Ultramarathon was not a private event on private land but a
government-sponsored event on government land, given the minister's
comments today regarding the uncertainty of any other act of legal redress
available to them and given the various serious findings of failings of
government agencies, particularly the minister's agency Eventscorp, how
is it that the minister thinks that just $450 000 is an adequate payment?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2)
I have to say that the question was so long that I cannot remember the first
bit of it, but I will do my best.
Mrs M.H. Roberts : It was about the
contact with the girls and their lawyers.
Several members
interjected.
The SPEAKER : The Minister for Tourism
has indicated that he had not heard the first part of the question. The member
for Midland is providing that information to the minister. The member for
Midland does not need any assistance in providing that information.
Dr K.D. HAMES : Mr Speaker, I did hear
it, but it was just a very long question, as you may be aware. The first part
related to what contact there had been with lawyers. The Attorney General and
his department were responsible for any act-of-grace payment, so I am not aware
what specific contact he had, other than the fact that the lawyer for Miss Pitt
and others has put in an application for an act-of-grace payment; that is how
these things work. Governments do not volunteer act-of-grace payments; people
apply for them and that lawyer has —
Mrs M.H. Roberts : Do you know what they
asked for?
Dr K.D. HAMES : Yes—a
significant amount of money more than has been provided. It was the advice of
the Solicitor-General's department, having read through the report,
that there was no legal requirement for the government to make an act-of-grace
payment nor any real capacity, because it did not fit —
Mrs M.H. Roberts : What about a moral
requirement?
Dr K.D. HAMES : I
am trying to answer the member's question. It does not fit into what
would normally be regarded as an act-of-grace payment when some act of
government has been responsible for the events that occurred. I do not accept,
nor do I accept that the report stated, that any failings that may have been
attributed to various government departments, including my own, resulted in the
outcome we see with the significant damage to those who ran in the event. Sure,
we have made changes since that time to the way the government operates based
on the recommendations of the findings of the department and we now do things
differently. But there was no requirement, nor any real idea, that some of
those things may have been required. At the end of the day, a company that is
based overseas ran an event. This is the second time it ran it in Western
Australia. Tourism WA came along and paid, at the last minute, to contract a
company to provide film footage so we could use that internationally, and at
the same time it provided some funding to the company running that event. That
does not make the state government responsible. Sure, there are issues with
sighting of insurance and risk management plans and so on; those are
after-the-event things that have not contributed to the event as it occurred.
Mrs M.H. Roberts :
If you had a risk management plan in place, it might not have happened. That is
the whole point.
Dr K.D. HAMES :
Government does not have risk management plans. The member should go back and
read her own report. The government does not have risk management plans in
place. Nor, under the recommendations, will government have risk management
plans.
Mrs
M.H. Roberts interjected.
Dr
K.D. HAMES : Mr Speaker, I am finding it very difficult.
Nor will the government have risk
management plans in the future. Sure, we have changed the way things are done
from the things we have learnt from this inquiry, but that does not mean that
the government should have had it in place before. The people who participated
in this event signed up with the company. A lot of them participated in last
year's event. They participated again in this event. They signed a
contract that said that they absolve the company of all responsibilities. It is
up to their lawyers to work out what action they need to take. That is not a
government responsibility. People are seriously injured in this state for a
variety of reasons every single day; people are badly injured. That does not
make it the responsibility of the taxpayers of Western Australia. In this case
we recognise the severe distress and injury that has been done to those two
women in particular and recognise the difficulty that they will have in seeking
legal outcomes. To provide some support for additional medical bills or legal
fees, if they wish to take it further, the government has provided an amount of
money that we hope will assist them in any future endeavours they wish to
undertake.
I have to say that the question was so long that I cannot remember the first
bit of it, but I will do my best.
Mrs M.H. Roberts : It was about the
contact with the girls and their lawyers.
Several members
interjected.
The SPEAKER : The Minister for Tourism
has indicated that he had not heard the first part of the question. The member
for Midland is providing that information to the minister. The member for
Midland does not need any assistance in providing that information.
Dr K.D. HAMES : Mr Speaker, I did hear
it, but it was just a very long question, as you may be aware. The first part
related to what contact there had been with lawyers. The Attorney General and
his department were responsible for any act-of-grace payment, so I am not aware
what specific contact he had, other than the fact that the lawyer for Miss Pitt
and others has put in an application for an act-of-grace payment; that is how
these things work. Governments do not volunteer act-of-grace payments; people
apply for them and that lawyer has —
Mrs M.H. Roberts : Do you know what they
asked for?
Dr K.D. HAMES : Yes—a
significant amount of money more than has been provided. It was the advice of
the Solicitor-General's department, having read through the report,
that there was no legal requirement for the government to make an act-of-grace
payment nor any real capacity, because it did not fit —
Mrs M.H. Roberts : What about a moral
requirement?
Dr K.D. HAMES : I
am trying to answer the member's question. It does not fit into what
would normally be regarded as an act-of-grace payment when some act of
government has been responsible for the events that occurred. I do not accept,
nor do I accept that the report stated, that any failings that may have been
attributed to various government departments, including my own, resulted in the
outcome we see with the significant damage to those who ran in the event. Sure,
we have made changes since that time to the way the government operates based
on the recommendations of the findings of the department and we now do things
differently. But there was no requirement, nor any real idea, that some of
those things may have been required. At the end of the day, a company that is
based overseas ran an event. This is the second time it ran it in Western
Australia. Tourism WA came along and paid, at the last minute, to contract a
company to provide film footage so we could use that internationally, and at
the same time it provided some funding to the company running that event. That
does not make the state government responsible. Sure, there are issues with
sighting of insurance and risk management plans and so on; those are
after-the-event things that have not contributed to the event as it occurred.
Mrs M.H. Roberts :
If you had a risk management plan in place, it might not have happened. That is
the whole point.
Dr K.D. HAMES :
Government does not have risk management plans. The member should go back and
read her own report. The government does not have risk management plans in
place. Nor, under the recommendations, will government have risk management
plans.
Mrs
M.H. Roberts interjected.
Dr
K.D. HAMES : Mr Speaker, I am finding it very difficult.
Nor will the government have risk
management plans in the future. Sure, we have changed the way things are done
from the things we have learnt from this inquiry, but that does not mean that
the government should have had it in place before. The people who participated
in this event signed up with the company. A lot of them participated in last
year's event. They participated again in this event. They signed a
contract that said that they absolve the company of all responsibilities. It is
up to their lawyers to work out what action they need to take. That is not a
government responsibility. People are seriously injured in this state for a
variety of reasons every single day; people are badly injured. That does not
make it the responsibility of the taxpayers of Western Australia. In this case
we recognise the severe distress and injury that has been done to those two
women in particular and recognise the difficulty that they will have in seeking
legal outcomes. To provide some support for additional medical bills or legal
fees, if they wish to take it further, the government has provided an amount of
money that we hope will assist them in any future endeavours they wish to
undertake.
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.