❓ The Minister for Housing and Works addresses the tragic death of a child in Roebourne and provides an update on the RCD installation program in Homeswest properties, revealing significant failures in completion and data accuracy. An audit is commissioned and the previous government is criticised for underfunding the program.
AnsweredQoN 683Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
ROEBOURNE FATALITY — HOMESWEST HOUSING — RESIDUAL CURRENT DEVICE
Can the Minister for Housing and Works please update the house on developments on the tragic death of a young child in Roebourne? Mr T.R. BUSWELL
Can the Minister for Housing and Works please update the house on developments on the tragic death of a young child in Roebourne? Mr T.R. BUSWELL
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Carine for the question. I will just get my breath back. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : My time for the fun run was one hour, one minute and 11 seconds. It was agony every step of the way. Mr T.G. Stephens : We’re dealing with a serious issue here if you don’t mind. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am about to tell members something. The details of the death of the young boy are being investigated by the appropriate authority, the coroner. Those details will be provided in due course when that is finished. My focus and that of the government has been more particularly on the residual current device program, which as I indicated to the house the other day, was introduced in 2005. Everyone was of the belief that by the middle of 2007 all Homeswest properties in Western Australia would have an RCD installed. Why? Because they are devices that save lives. I cannot say for a fact that had an RCD been installed in the house in Roebourne, it would have saved the young boy’s life. That will be determined in due course through the appropriate investigation. I advised the house on Tuesday that Homeswest has investigated 19 350 of its properties and found that 211 properties did not have RCDs. I advised the house that 2 650 properties were yet to be inspected. I have subsequently been advised by Homeswest that that number was wrong and that the number of properties that were outstanding was 7 788. I also asked Homeswest for information on the number of properties in remote Aboriginal communities that it has responsibility for and what had happened to those. I was advised that of the around 2 500 properties in remote Aboriginal communities that Homeswest has responsibility for, as of today 570 of those do not have RCDs installed. Quite simply, that is not good enough. I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: I thank the member for Carine for the question. I will just get my breath back. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : My time for the fun run was one hour, one minute and 11 seconds. It was agony every step of the way. Mr T.G. Stephens : We’re dealing with a serious issue here if you don’t mind. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am about to tell members something. The details of the death of the young boy are being investigated by the appropriate authority, the coroner. Those details will be provided in due course when that is finished. My focus and that of the government has been more particularly on the residual current device program, which as I indicated to the house the other day, was introduced in 2005. Everyone was of the belief that by the middle of 2007 all Homeswest properties in Western Australia would have an RCD installed. Why? Because they are devices that save lives. I cannot say for a fact that had an RCD been installed in the house in Roebourne, it would have saved the young boy’s life. That will be determined in due course through the appropriate investigation. I advised the house on Tuesday that Homeswest has investigated 19 350 of its properties and found that 211 properties did not have RCDs. I advised the house that 2 650 properties were yet to be inspected. I have subsequently been advised by Homeswest that that number was wrong and that the number of properties that were outstanding was 7 788. I also asked Homeswest for information on the number of properties in remote Aboriginal communities that it has responsibility for and what had happened to those. I was advised that of the around 2 500 properties in remote Aboriginal communities that Homeswest has responsibility for, as of today 570 of those do not have RCDs installed. Quite simply, that is not good enough. I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
I thank the member for Carine for the question. I will just get my breath back. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : My time for the fun run was one hour, one minute and 11 seconds. It was agony every step of the way. Mr T.G. Stephens : We’re dealing with a serious issue here if you don’t mind. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am about to tell members something. The details of the death of the young boy are being investigated by the appropriate authority, the coroner. Those details will be provided in due course when that is finished. My focus and that of the government has been more particularly on the residual current device program, which as I indicated to the house the other day, was introduced in 2005. Everyone was of the belief that by the middle of 2007 all Homeswest properties in Western Australia would have an RCD installed. Why? Because they are devices that save lives. I cannot say for a fact that had an RCD been installed in the house in Roebourne, it would have saved the young boy’s life. That will be determined in due course through the appropriate investigation. I advised the house on Tuesday that Homeswest has investigated 19 350 of its properties and found that 211 properties did not have RCDs. I advised the house that 2 650 properties were yet to be inspected. I have subsequently been advised by Homeswest that that number was wrong and that the number of properties that were outstanding was 7 788. I also asked Homeswest for information on the number of properties in remote Aboriginal communities that it has responsibility for and what had happened to those. I was advised that of the around 2 500 properties in remote Aboriginal communities that Homeswest has responsibility for, as of today 570 of those do not have RCDs installed. Quite simply, that is not good enough. I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : My time for the fun run was one hour, one minute and 11 seconds. It was agony every step of the way. Mr T.G. Stephens : We’re dealing with a serious issue here if you don’t mind. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am about to tell members something. The details of the death of the young boy are being investigated by the appropriate authority, the coroner. Those details will be provided in due course when that is finished. My focus and that of the government has been more particularly on the residual current device program, which as I indicated to the house the other day, was introduced in 2005. Everyone was of the belief that by the middle of 2007 all Homeswest properties in Western Australia would have an RCD installed. Why? Because they are devices that save lives. I cannot say for a fact that had an RCD been installed in the house in Roebourne, it would have saved the young boy’s life. That will be determined in due course through the appropriate investigation. I advised the house on Tuesday that Homeswest has investigated 19 350 of its properties and found that 211 properties did not have RCDs. I advised the house that 2 650 properties were yet to be inspected. I have subsequently been advised by Homeswest that that number was wrong and that the number of properties that were outstanding was 7 788. I also asked Homeswest for information on the number of properties in remote Aboriginal communities that it has responsibility for and what had happened to those. I was advised that of the around 2 500 properties in remote Aboriginal communities that Homeswest has responsibility for, as of today 570 of those do not have RCDs installed. Quite simply, that is not good enough. I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : My time for the fun run was one hour, one minute and 11 seconds. It was agony every step of the way. Mr T.G. Stephens : We’re dealing with a serious issue here if you don’t mind. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am about to tell members something. The details of the death of the young boy are being investigated by the appropriate authority, the coroner. Those details will be provided in due course when that is finished. My focus and that of the government has been more particularly on the residual current device program, which as I indicated to the house the other day, was introduced in 2005. Everyone was of the belief that by the middle of 2007 all Homeswest properties in Western Australia would have an RCD installed. Why? Because they are devices that save lives. I cannot say for a fact that had an RCD been installed in the house in Roebourne, it would have saved the young boy’s life. That will be determined in due course through the appropriate investigation. I advised the house on Tuesday that Homeswest has investigated 19 350 of its properties and found that 211 properties did not have RCDs. I advised the house that 2 650 properties were yet to be inspected. I have subsequently been advised by Homeswest that that number was wrong and that the number of properties that were outstanding was 7 788. I also asked Homeswest for information on the number of properties in remote Aboriginal communities that it has responsibility for and what had happened to those. I was advised that of the around 2 500 properties in remote Aboriginal communities that Homeswest has responsibility for, as of today 570 of those do not have RCDs installed. Quite simply, that is not good enough. I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr T.G. Stephens : We’re dealing with a serious issue here if you don’t mind. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am about to tell members something. The details of the death of the young boy are being investigated by the appropriate authority, the coroner. Those details will be provided in due course when that is finished. My focus and that of the government has been more particularly on the residual current device program, which as I indicated to the house the other day, was introduced in 2005. Everyone was of the belief that by the middle of 2007 all Homeswest properties in Western Australia would have an RCD installed. Why? Because they are devices that save lives. I cannot say for a fact that had an RCD been installed in the house in Roebourne, it would have saved the young boy’s life. That will be determined in due course through the appropriate investigation. I advised the house on Tuesday that Homeswest has investigated 19 350 of its properties and found that 211 properties did not have RCDs. I advised the house that 2 650 properties were yet to be inspected. I have subsequently been advised by Homeswest that that number was wrong and that the number of properties that were outstanding was 7 788. I also asked Homeswest for information on the number of properties in remote Aboriginal communities that it has responsibility for and what had happened to those. I was advised that of the around 2 500 properties in remote Aboriginal communities that Homeswest has responsibility for, as of today 570 of those do not have RCDs installed. Quite simply, that is not good enough. I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am about to tell members something. The details of the death of the young boy are being investigated by the appropriate authority, the coroner. Those details will be provided in due course when that is finished. My focus and that of the government has been more particularly on the residual current device program, which as I indicated to the house the other day, was introduced in 2005. Everyone was of the belief that by the middle of 2007 all Homeswest properties in Western Australia would have an RCD installed. Why? Because they are devices that save lives. I cannot say for a fact that had an RCD been installed in the house in Roebourne, it would have saved the young boy’s life. That will be determined in due course through the appropriate investigation. I advised the house on Tuesday that Homeswest has investigated 19 350 of its properties and found that 211 properties did not have RCDs. I advised the house that 2 650 properties were yet to be inspected. I have subsequently been advised by Homeswest that that number was wrong and that the number of properties that were outstanding was 7 788. I also asked Homeswest for information on the number of properties in remote Aboriginal communities that it has responsibility for and what had happened to those. I was advised that of the around 2 500 properties in remote Aboriginal communities that Homeswest has responsibility for, as of today 570 of those do not have RCDs installed. Quite simply, that is not good enough. I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am about to tell members something. The details of the death of the young boy are being investigated by the appropriate authority, the coroner. Those details will be provided in due course when that is finished. My focus and that of the government has been more particularly on the residual current device program, which as I indicated to the house the other day, was introduced in 2005. Everyone was of the belief that by the middle of 2007 all Homeswest properties in Western Australia would have an RCD installed. Why? Because they are devices that save lives. I cannot say for a fact that had an RCD been installed in the house in Roebourne, it would have saved the young boy’s life. That will be determined in due course through the appropriate investigation. I advised the house on Tuesday that Homeswest has investigated 19 350 of its properties and found that 211 properties did not have RCDs. I advised the house that 2 650 properties were yet to be inspected. I have subsequently been advised by Homeswest that that number was wrong and that the number of properties that were outstanding was 7 788. I also asked Homeswest for information on the number of properties in remote Aboriginal communities that it has responsibility for and what had happened to those. I was advised that of the around 2 500 properties in remote Aboriginal communities that Homeswest has responsibility for, as of today 570 of those do not have RCDs installed. Quite simply, that is not good enough. I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
I advised the house on Tuesday that Homeswest has investigated 19 350 of its properties and found that 211 properties did not have RCDs. I advised the house that 2 650 properties were yet to be inspected. I have subsequently been advised by Homeswest that that number was wrong and that the number of properties that were outstanding was 7 788. I also asked Homeswest for information on the number of properties in remote Aboriginal communities that it has responsibility for and what had happened to those. I was advised that of the around 2 500 properties in remote Aboriginal communities that Homeswest has responsibility for, as of today 570 of those do not have RCDs installed. Quite simply, that is not good enough. I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL replied: I thank the member for Carine for the question. I will just get my breath back. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : My time for the fun run was one hour, one minute and 11 seconds. It was agony every step of the way. Mr T.G. Stephens : We’re dealing with a serious issue here if you don’t mind. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am about to tell members something. The details of the death of the young boy are being investigated by the appropriate authority, the coroner. Those details will be provided in due course when that is finished. My focus and that of the government has been more particularly on the residual current device program, which as I indicated to the house the other day, was introduced in 2005. Everyone was of the belief that by the middle of 2007 all Homeswest properties in Western Australia would have an RCD installed. Why? Because they are devices that save lives. I cannot say for a fact that had an RCD been installed in the house in Roebourne, it would have saved the young boy’s life. That will be determined in due course through the appropriate investigation. I advised the house on Tuesday that Homeswest has investigated 19 350 of its properties and found that 211 properties did not have RCDs. I advised the house that 2 650 properties were yet to be inspected. I have subsequently been advised by Homeswest that that number was wrong and that the number of properties that were outstanding was 7 788. I also asked Homeswest for information on the number of properties in remote Aboriginal communities that it has responsibility for and what had happened to those. I was advised that of the around 2 500 properties in remote Aboriginal communities that Homeswest has responsibility for, as of today 570 of those do not have RCDs installed. Quite simply, that is not good enough. I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
I thank the member for Carine for the question. I will just get my breath back. Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : My time for the fun run was one hour, one minute and 11 seconds. It was agony every step of the way. Mr T.G. Stephens : We’re dealing with a serious issue here if you don’t mind. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am about to tell members something. The details of the death of the young boy are being investigated by the appropriate authority, the coroner. Those details will be provided in due course when that is finished. My focus and that of the government has been more particularly on the residual current device program, which as I indicated to the house the other day, was introduced in 2005. Everyone was of the belief that by the middle of 2007 all Homeswest properties in Western Australia would have an RCD installed. Why? Because they are devices that save lives. I cannot say for a fact that had an RCD been installed in the house in Roebourne, it would have saved the young boy’s life. That will be determined in due course through the appropriate investigation. I advised the house on Tuesday that Homeswest has investigated 19 350 of its properties and found that 211 properties did not have RCDs. I advised the house that 2 650 properties were yet to be inspected. I have subsequently been advised by Homeswest that that number was wrong and that the number of properties that were outstanding was 7 788. I also asked Homeswest for information on the number of properties in remote Aboriginal communities that it has responsibility for and what had happened to those. I was advised that of the around 2 500 properties in remote Aboriginal communities that Homeswest has responsibility for, as of today 570 of those do not have RCDs installed. Quite simply, that is not good enough. I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr R.H. Cook interjected. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : My time for the fun run was one hour, one minute and 11 seconds. It was agony every step of the way. Mr T.G. Stephens : We’re dealing with a serious issue here if you don’t mind. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am about to tell members something. The details of the death of the young boy are being investigated by the appropriate authority, the coroner. Those details will be provided in due course when that is finished. My focus and that of the government has been more particularly on the residual current device program, which as I indicated to the house the other day, was introduced in 2005. Everyone was of the belief that by the middle of 2007 all Homeswest properties in Western Australia would have an RCD installed. Why? Because they are devices that save lives. I cannot say for a fact that had an RCD been installed in the house in Roebourne, it would have saved the young boy’s life. That will be determined in due course through the appropriate investigation. I advised the house on Tuesday that Homeswest has investigated 19 350 of its properties and found that 211 properties did not have RCDs. I advised the house that 2 650 properties were yet to be inspected. I have subsequently been advised by Homeswest that that number was wrong and that the number of properties that were outstanding was 7 788. I also asked Homeswest for information on the number of properties in remote Aboriginal communities that it has responsibility for and what had happened to those. I was advised that of the around 2 500 properties in remote Aboriginal communities that Homeswest has responsibility for, as of today 570 of those do not have RCDs installed. Quite simply, that is not good enough. I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : My time for the fun run was one hour, one minute and 11 seconds. It was agony every step of the way. Mr T.G. Stephens : We’re dealing with a serious issue here if you don’t mind. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am about to tell members something. The details of the death of the young boy are being investigated by the appropriate authority, the coroner. Those details will be provided in due course when that is finished. My focus and that of the government has been more particularly on the residual current device program, which as I indicated to the house the other day, was introduced in 2005. Everyone was of the belief that by the middle of 2007 all Homeswest properties in Western Australia would have an RCD installed. Why? Because they are devices that save lives. I cannot say for a fact that had an RCD been installed in the house in Roebourne, it would have saved the young boy’s life. That will be determined in due course through the appropriate investigation. I advised the house on Tuesday that Homeswest has investigated 19 350 of its properties and found that 211 properties did not have RCDs. I advised the house that 2 650 properties were yet to be inspected. I have subsequently been advised by Homeswest that that number was wrong and that the number of properties that were outstanding was 7 788. I also asked Homeswest for information on the number of properties in remote Aboriginal communities that it has responsibility for and what had happened to those. I was advised that of the around 2 500 properties in remote Aboriginal communities that Homeswest has responsibility for, as of today 570 of those do not have RCDs installed. Quite simply, that is not good enough. I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr T.G. Stephens : We’re dealing with a serious issue here if you don’t mind. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am about to tell members something. The details of the death of the young boy are being investigated by the appropriate authority, the coroner. Those details will be provided in due course when that is finished. My focus and that of the government has been more particularly on the residual current device program, which as I indicated to the house the other day, was introduced in 2005. Everyone was of the belief that by the middle of 2007 all Homeswest properties in Western Australia would have an RCD installed. Why? Because they are devices that save lives. I cannot say for a fact that had an RCD been installed in the house in Roebourne, it would have saved the young boy’s life. That will be determined in due course through the appropriate investigation. I advised the house on Tuesday that Homeswest has investigated 19 350 of its properties and found that 211 properties did not have RCDs. I advised the house that 2 650 properties were yet to be inspected. I have subsequently been advised by Homeswest that that number was wrong and that the number of properties that were outstanding was 7 788. I also asked Homeswest for information on the number of properties in remote Aboriginal communities that it has responsibility for and what had happened to those. I was advised that of the around 2 500 properties in remote Aboriginal communities that Homeswest has responsibility for, as of today 570 of those do not have RCDs installed. Quite simply, that is not good enough. I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am about to tell members something. The details of the death of the young boy are being investigated by the appropriate authority, the coroner. Those details will be provided in due course when that is finished. My focus and that of the government has been more particularly on the residual current device program, which as I indicated to the house the other day, was introduced in 2005. Everyone was of the belief that by the middle of 2007 all Homeswest properties in Western Australia would have an RCD installed. Why? Because they are devices that save lives. I cannot say for a fact that had an RCD been installed in the house in Roebourne, it would have saved the young boy’s life. That will be determined in due course through the appropriate investigation. I advised the house on Tuesday that Homeswest has investigated 19 350 of its properties and found that 211 properties did not have RCDs. I advised the house that 2 650 properties were yet to be inspected. I have subsequently been advised by Homeswest that that number was wrong and that the number of properties that were outstanding was 7 788. I also asked Homeswest for information on the number of properties in remote Aboriginal communities that it has responsibility for and what had happened to those. I was advised that of the around 2 500 properties in remote Aboriginal communities that Homeswest has responsibility for, as of today 570 of those do not have RCDs installed. Quite simply, that is not good enough. I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am about to tell members something. The details of the death of the young boy are being investigated by the appropriate authority, the coroner. Those details will be provided in due course when that is finished. My focus and that of the government has been more particularly on the residual current device program, which as I indicated to the house the other day, was introduced in 2005. Everyone was of the belief that by the middle of 2007 all Homeswest properties in Western Australia would have an RCD installed. Why? Because they are devices that save lives. I cannot say for a fact that had an RCD been installed in the house in Roebourne, it would have saved the young boy’s life. That will be determined in due course through the appropriate investigation. I advised the house on Tuesday that Homeswest has investigated 19 350 of its properties and found that 211 properties did not have RCDs. I advised the house that 2 650 properties were yet to be inspected. I have subsequently been advised by Homeswest that that number was wrong and that the number of properties that were outstanding was 7 788. I also asked Homeswest for information on the number of properties in remote Aboriginal communities that it has responsibility for and what had happened to those. I was advised that of the around 2 500 properties in remote Aboriginal communities that Homeswest has responsibility for, as of today 570 of those do not have RCDs installed. Quite simply, that is not good enough. I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
I advised the house on Tuesday that Homeswest has investigated 19 350 of its properties and found that 211 properties did not have RCDs. I advised the house that 2 650 properties were yet to be inspected. I have subsequently been advised by Homeswest that that number was wrong and that the number of properties that were outstanding was 7 788. I also asked Homeswest for information on the number of properties in remote Aboriginal communities that it has responsibility for and what had happened to those. I was advised that of the around 2 500 properties in remote Aboriginal communities that Homeswest has responsibility for, as of today 570 of those do not have RCDs installed. Quite simply, that is not good enough. I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
I thought I would inform the house of the actions we have taken because it is our responsibility to fix this mess. It is our responsibility to report accurately on it. Very quickly, what are we doing about the 211 properties that have been identified? By and large, those RCDs will be fitted this week. All houses in Roebourne are being checked for RCDs and smoke alarms and when a problem is identified, it is rectified. The 7 788 properties that have not been inspected will be inspected over the next three weeks. I expect that a number of those will require RCDs. The 570 remote houses that require RCDs will have them fitted by the end of October. I have asked the Auditor General to conduct a compliance audit of this program and hopefully, more broadly, some of the aspects of recordkeeping and program auditing within the Department of Housing. I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
I have been very critical of my department, the Department of Housing, this week. I think that criticism is justified. The criticism has levelled around three issues. Firstly, why was the program that was funded not finished? Secondly, why did the department’s internal systems tell us on a number of occasions that the property had an RCD when it clearly did not? Thirdly, why is the department providing information that is of such poor quality that I later have to correct it? I have demanded answers. I expect that I will get some answers from the Auditor General. I have already received some answers as to why this program was not completed. One of the reasons that this program was not completed is that when given an opportunity to fund this program, the former government chose not to. Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr M. McGowan : Don’t politicise this. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : How much did the former government fund it for? One of the reasons this program was not completed is that in 2004 the Department of Housing went to the then government and said that approximately 23 000 properties require RCDs. The cost of installing those devices would be $15 million. I understand that funding for $5 million over three years was sought. It would have cost $15 million for 23 000 homes to put in place devices that potentially save lives. My advice is that the amount of funding that was provided was not $15 million. The amount of funding that was provided was $8 million, enough to fund 12 500 properties. It is little wonder that the department has struggled to complete the program when the former government failed to provide the full level of funding. Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr M. McGowan : Are you going to say we’ve got blood on our hands now? Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the former government was given an option to fund the program fully and it refused to do it. I am just presenting the facts as they have been presented to me. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
The SPEAKER : Treasurer, take a seat. I would like to hear the conclusion of your remarks but I would like to hear those very rapidly. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : At a time when the former government had cumulative surpluses of $6 billion, why did it choose not to fund this program? It had funding for only half the houses. Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mrs M.H. Roberts interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
The SPEAKER : Member for Midland, I formally call you for the first time. Treasurer, I want you to conclude your remarks. Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL : I conclude by saying that opposition members come into this place and lecture us on things like Redress WA and our great social conscience, yet they had an opportunity to help some of the most underprivileged people in this society and they turned their back on them at a time when they had billions of dollars in the bank. Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr D.A. Templeman interjected. The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
The SPEAKER : Member for Mandurah, I formally call you for the first time. Are you going to conclude your remarks, Treasurer, or will I sit you down? Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
Mr T.R. Buswell : I am done.
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.