❓ Question regarding the Department of Housing's asbestos management policy, specifically concerning the Dividing Fences Act and cost-sharing with private property owners. The Minister's response sparked heated debate and was ultimately curtailed by the Speaker.
AnsweredQoN 76Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Department of Housing — ASBESTOS MANAGEMENT
POLICY
76. Mrs L.M. HARVEY to the Minister for Housing:
May I first acknowledge the members of the Como Combined Probus
Club from the member for South Perth's electorate who are in the public
gallery today.
Minister, I read with interest today remarks made by the
member for Willagee with respect to the Department of Housing's
asbestos replacement policy. Can the minister please update the house on the
departmental policy, and the part the Dividing Fences Act plays in this
question and how it protects property owners?
POLICY
76. Mrs L.M. HARVEY to the Minister for Housing:
May I first acknowledge the members of the Como Combined Probus
Club from the member for South Perth's electorate who are in the public
gallery today.
Minister, I read with interest today remarks made by the
member for Willagee with respect to the Department of Housing's
asbestos replacement policy. Can the minister please update the house on the
departmental policy, and the part the Dividing Fences Act plays in this
question and how it protects property owners?
AnswerView source ↗
I will, thanks, member for Scarborough. By way of background,
since 2008 the Department of Housing has been implementing an asbestos
management plan. It is often criticised for not implementing it quickly enough.
It is a very serious issue; asbestos needs to be treated appropriately and
properly. By 2011, 792 properties with asbestos-containing materials remained
to be dealt with, and more than $2 million has been allocated for that purpose.
Of those, 323 properties had asbestos fences that an independent audit deemed
needed replacement. Of those, 152 were in the south metropolitan region, and we
plan to replace them with Colorbond. I think it is entirely sensible. The
department wrote to adjoining property owners, and the letter basically
outlined what had happened and the course of action, and said to them that
under the law in Western Australia, the Dividing Fences Act, adjoining owners
pay 50 per cent. I think that is entirely appropriate: the taxpayer pays for
our bit of land and the private landowner next door pays for their bit of land
and gets a nice new Colorbond fence, but, more importantly, a safe Colorbond
fence. The Department of Housing went further; it said in its letter that if
property owners experienced problems in making their payment, the department
would enter into terms with them—in other words, on a one-by-one basis,
the department will work out what it can do.
This matter clearly upset the member for Willagee. He
produced a press release, and he was on Howard Sattler's radio program
yesterday afternoon banging on and on about this. He said that it was a measure
of the desperation of the failed privatisation of Homeswest housing maintenance
for the government to ask private landowners to pay half the cost of
implementing an internal department policy—that is, for getting rid of
asbestos and applying the law. He said that it may be valid for the department
to ensure all public housing stock is free from asbestos but that it is not
valid to demand private property owners to foot half the bill of the policy. He
then said that these were simple bullyboy tactics from the government and the
Minister for Housing, who had clearly lost control of his department.
In light of the member for Willagee's public comments
on the Howard Sattler program, can I ask him a question? Did he get one of
those letters? Did the member for Willagee get one of those letters? Did Peter
Charles Tinley get a letter from the Department of Housing in relation to his
property at 18 Pagneil Court, Hamilton Hill? He did not get a letter? He owns
the property at 18 Pagneil Court, Hamilton Hill, which adjoins a Department of
Housing property. Did the department tell him that he would have to pay half
the cost of the fence? Does he own —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Mount Lawley, I formally call you to order for the first time today.
I am on my feet; it will be the way this place works for the rest of this year.
I do not know whether the line that the Minister for Housing is pursuing at the
moment is of relevance to members in this place; he may want to discuss this
matter with the member for Willagee outside this place, but at this point, I
ask him to return to the substance of the question asked by the member for
Scarborough, and I am going to ask him to not further reflect on the member for
Willagee.
Mr P.C. Tinley :
How does this sit with your privacy?
The SPEAKER :
Member for Willagee! I am on my feet; I am formally going to call you to order
for the first time today.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL :
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr
P.C. Tinley : You sacked a staff member for it, have a crack! Come on! You're
spineless!
The
SPEAKER : I am not particularly interested in the interjections. Minister,
if you wish to resume, I am going to ask you to come back to the substance of
the policy, not any individual member or matter. I am going to ask members to
my left to respect the decision I have made in this regard.
Mr
T.R. BUSWELL : It was a question asked in two parts; I think I have dealt
with the first part. The first part deals with the member for Willagee's
vigorous opposition to our policy to get asbestos out of homes. It may be
construed that it has a financial impact on him. The second part dealt more
broadly —
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Do members want question time to continue? I am sure they do.
Minister for Housing, I am going to formally call you to order for the first
time today. I wanted no further reflection on the member for Willagee, but you
immediately did that. If you want to continue answering this question, you will
return to the substance. If you do not, I am going to sit you down immediately.
Withdrawal of Remark
Mr
M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, can I just make my point of order?
The SPEAKER : You
can make a point of order.
Mr M. McGOWAN :
Back onto standing order 92, the minister made an imputation and personal
reflection on the member for Willagee. I request that the Minister for Housing
withdraw it.
Mrs C.A. Martin interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Member for Kimberley, I formally call you to order for the
first time today. Minister for Housing, I agree with the Leader of the
Opposition. I ask that you withdraw that comment.
Mr
T.R. BUSWELL : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I withdraw that comment.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr T.R. BUSWELL :
In doing so, I will move on to the second part of the question. The second part
of the question dealt with dividing fences more generally, as I recall. I want
to explain to the house very quickly why we have dividing fences legislation in
Western Australia. I will be brief, but I think it is important to put this on
the public record. A matter was drawn to my attention by a lady—I think
she is about 80 to 85 years old. I am holding a photo of her rear fence. It is
an atrocious rear fence. I make this point to highlight the value of the
dividing fences legislation. Her neighbour does not see this fence because the
house is on somewhat of a sloping block and the back fence is hidden by a pool.
When it rains, debris and waste from the neighbouring property floods through
into the neighbour's fence. For many years that neighbour has been
requesting that their neighbour fix this fence. In 2010 that person contacted
their neighbour at their place of work, and their neighbour gave an undertaking
to repair the fence. They did not. Last year, in August, the City of Stirling,
the responsible local government authority, met with the neighbour who needs to
repair the fence, and that neighbour gave undertakings that work would start
within three weeks to repair that fence. That was in August last year. That has
not happened. The City of Stirling has now changed its view somewhat in
relation to that fence and is now saying it is a private matter that has to be
followed up under the Dividing Fences Act. I am going to go out and meet this
85-year-old lady next week and discuss this matter with her and with the Mayor
of the City of Stirling, I hope. Mr Speaker, you can imagine my surprise when I
understood that the owner of the property behind this 85-year-old pensioner was
none other than Hon Ken Travers.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : I formally call the
member for Victoria Park to order for the second time today. I formally call
the member for Bassendean to order for the second time today. The member for
Victoria Park is trying to ask a question; people are interjecting.
since 2008 the Department of Housing has been implementing an asbestos
management plan. It is often criticised for not implementing it quickly enough.
It is a very serious issue; asbestos needs to be treated appropriately and
properly. By 2011, 792 properties with asbestos-containing materials remained
to be dealt with, and more than $2 million has been allocated for that purpose.
Of those, 323 properties had asbestos fences that an independent audit deemed
needed replacement. Of those, 152 were in the south metropolitan region, and we
plan to replace them with Colorbond. I think it is entirely sensible. The
department wrote to adjoining property owners, and the letter basically
outlined what had happened and the course of action, and said to them that
under the law in Western Australia, the Dividing Fences Act, adjoining owners
pay 50 per cent. I think that is entirely appropriate: the taxpayer pays for
our bit of land and the private landowner next door pays for their bit of land
and gets a nice new Colorbond fence, but, more importantly, a safe Colorbond
fence. The Department of Housing went further; it said in its letter that if
property owners experienced problems in making their payment, the department
would enter into terms with them—in other words, on a one-by-one basis,
the department will work out what it can do.
This matter clearly upset the member for Willagee. He
produced a press release, and he was on Howard Sattler's radio program
yesterday afternoon banging on and on about this. He said that it was a measure
of the desperation of the failed privatisation of Homeswest housing maintenance
for the government to ask private landowners to pay half the cost of
implementing an internal department policy—that is, for getting rid of
asbestos and applying the law. He said that it may be valid for the department
to ensure all public housing stock is free from asbestos but that it is not
valid to demand private property owners to foot half the bill of the policy. He
then said that these were simple bullyboy tactics from the government and the
Minister for Housing, who had clearly lost control of his department.
In light of the member for Willagee's public comments
on the Howard Sattler program, can I ask him a question? Did he get one of
those letters? Did the member for Willagee get one of those letters? Did Peter
Charles Tinley get a letter from the Department of Housing in relation to his
property at 18 Pagneil Court, Hamilton Hill? He did not get a letter? He owns
the property at 18 Pagneil Court, Hamilton Hill, which adjoins a Department of
Housing property. Did the department tell him that he would have to pay half
the cost of the fence? Does he own —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Mount Lawley, I formally call you to order for the first time today.
I am on my feet; it will be the way this place works for the rest of this year.
I do not know whether the line that the Minister for Housing is pursuing at the
moment is of relevance to members in this place; he may want to discuss this
matter with the member for Willagee outside this place, but at this point, I
ask him to return to the substance of the question asked by the member for
Scarborough, and I am going to ask him to not further reflect on the member for
Willagee.
Mr P.C. Tinley :
How does this sit with your privacy?
The SPEAKER :
Member for Willagee! I am on my feet; I am formally going to call you to order
for the first time today.
Mr T.R. BUSWELL :
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr
P.C. Tinley : You sacked a staff member for it, have a crack! Come on! You're
spineless!
The
SPEAKER : I am not particularly interested in the interjections. Minister,
if you wish to resume, I am going to ask you to come back to the substance of
the policy, not any individual member or matter. I am going to ask members to
my left to respect the decision I have made in this regard.
Mr
T.R. BUSWELL : It was a question asked in two parts; I think I have dealt
with the first part. The first part deals with the member for Willagee's
vigorous opposition to our policy to get asbestos out of homes. It may be
construed that it has a financial impact on him. The second part dealt more
broadly —
Several members interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Do members want question time to continue? I am sure they do.
Minister for Housing, I am going to formally call you to order for the first
time today. I wanted no further reflection on the member for Willagee, but you
immediately did that. If you want to continue answering this question, you will
return to the substance. If you do not, I am going to sit you down immediately.
Withdrawal of Remark
Mr
M. McGOWAN : Mr Speaker, can I just make my point of order?
The SPEAKER : You
can make a point of order.
Mr M. McGOWAN :
Back onto standing order 92, the minister made an imputation and personal
reflection on the member for Willagee. I request that the Minister for Housing
withdraw it.
Mrs C.A. Martin interjected.
The
SPEAKER : Member for Kimberley, I formally call you to order for the
first time today. Minister for Housing, I agree with the Leader of the
Opposition. I ask that you withdraw that comment.
Mr
T.R. BUSWELL : Thank you, Mr Speaker. I withdraw that comment.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Mr T.R. BUSWELL :
In doing so, I will move on to the second part of the question. The second part
of the question dealt with dividing fences more generally, as I recall. I want
to explain to the house very quickly why we have dividing fences legislation in
Western Australia. I will be brief, but I think it is important to put this on
the public record. A matter was drawn to my attention by a lady—I think
she is about 80 to 85 years old. I am holding a photo of her rear fence. It is
an atrocious rear fence. I make this point to highlight the value of the
dividing fences legislation. Her neighbour does not see this fence because the
house is on somewhat of a sloping block and the back fence is hidden by a pool.
When it rains, debris and waste from the neighbouring property floods through
into the neighbour's fence. For many years that neighbour has been
requesting that their neighbour fix this fence. In 2010 that person contacted
their neighbour at their place of work, and their neighbour gave an undertaking
to repair the fence. They did not. Last year, in August, the City of Stirling,
the responsible local government authority, met with the neighbour who needs to
repair the fence, and that neighbour gave undertakings that work would start
within three weeks to repair that fence. That was in August last year. That has
not happened. The City of Stirling has now changed its view somewhat in
relation to that fence and is now saying it is a private matter that has to be
followed up under the Dividing Fences Act. I am going to go out and meet this
85-year-old lady next week and discuss this matter with her and with the Mayor
of the City of Stirling, I hope. Mr Speaker, you can imagine my surprise when I
understood that the owner of the property behind this 85-year-old pensioner was
none other than Hon Ken Travers.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : I formally call the
member for Victoria Park to order for the second time today. I formally call
the member for Bassendean to order for the second time today. The member for
Victoria Park is trying to ask a question; people are interjecting.
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.