❓ A WA parliamentary question investigates the adequacy of an electrical inspection by Mr. Anderson and the subsequent inspection by Mr. Reid, seeking details on reports, safety determinations, and disciplinary actions.
AnsweredQoN 732Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter from the Executive Officer, Electrical Licensing Board, Energy Safety Division of the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection dated 24 March 2004, reference EW 104436/EC000137, regarding a visual inspection carried out at 5 Columba Street, Bunbury by Mr Russell Anderson, an electrical contractor. (1) In relation to an inspection of the electrical wiring at the premises by Mr Ross Reid, a senior electrical inspector at the Energy Safety Division - (i) when did Mr Reid carry out his inspection; (ii) was a report written subsequent to Mr Reid’s inspection of the premises; and, if so, will the minister table a copy of that report; (iii) did Mr Reid determine that the electrical wiring in the house was unsafe at the time of inspection; and (iv) did Mr Reid test the electrical wiring at the premises; and, if so, what was the result of the test? (2) Did the Energy Safety Division find that Mr Anderson had breached specific rules or regulations, including the Electricity (Licensing) Regulations 1991? (3) Has the Electrical Licensing Board taken or does the board intend to take disciplinary action against Mr Anderson on this matter? (4) As at October 2002 had the Electrical Licensing Board released guidelines on conducting visual electrical assessments of existing installations? I wonder whether the minister heard that question, as I had trouble hearing myself. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for so eloquently reading the question; I was able to hear it. I thank her for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following response - (1) (i) May 2003; (ii) yes, inspector’s order No 00327 - I table a copy of that order; (iii) no; and (iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant. (2) No, however it found that Mr Anderson’s inspection was inadequate. (3) No, however the board warned Mr Anderson that he had failed to fulfil his basic obligation as a licensed electrical contractor by not providing a comprehensive inspection and a detailed report that truly reflected the condition of the electrical installation (4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
(1) In relation to an inspection of the electrical wiring at the premises by Mr Ross Reid, a senior electrical inspector at the Energy Safety Division - (i) when did Mr Reid carry out his inspection; (ii) was a report written subsequent to Mr Reid’s inspection of the premises; and, if so, will the minister table a copy of that report; (iii) did Mr Reid determine that the electrical wiring in the house was unsafe at the time of inspection; and (iv) did Mr Reid test the electrical wiring at the premises; and, if so, what was the result of the test? (2) Did the Energy Safety Division find that Mr Anderson had breached specific rules or regulations, including the Electricity (Licensing) Regulations 1991? (3) Has the Electrical Licensing Board taken or does the board intend to take disciplinary action against Mr Anderson on this matter? (4) As at October 2002 had the Electrical Licensing Board released guidelines on conducting visual electrical assessments of existing installations? I wonder whether the minister heard that question, as I had trouble hearing myself. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for so eloquently reading the question; I was able to hear it. I thank her for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following response - (1) (i) May 2003; (ii) yes, inspector’s order No 00327 - I table a copy of that order; (iii) no; and (iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant. (2) No, however it found that Mr Anderson’s inspection was inadequate. (3) No, however the board warned Mr Anderson that he had failed to fulfil his basic obligation as a licensed electrical contractor by not providing a comprehensive inspection and a detailed report that truly reflected the condition of the electrical installation (4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
(ii) was a report written subsequent to Mr Reid’s inspection of the premises; and, if so, will the minister table a copy of that report; (iii) did Mr Reid determine that the electrical wiring in the house was unsafe at the time of inspection; and (iv) did Mr Reid test the electrical wiring at the premises; and, if so, what was the result of the test?
(iii) did Mr Reid determine that the electrical wiring in the house was unsafe at the time of inspection; and (iv) did Mr Reid test the electrical wiring at the premises; and, if so, what was the result of the test?
(iv) did Mr Reid test the electrical wiring at the premises; and, if so, what was the result of the test?
(3) Has the Electrical Licensing Board taken or does the board intend to take disciplinary action against Mr Anderson on this matter? (4) As at October 2002 had the Electrical Licensing Board released guidelines on conducting visual electrical assessments of existing installations? I wonder whether the minister heard that question, as I had trouble hearing myself. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for so eloquently reading the question; I was able to hear it. I thank her for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following response - (1) (i) May 2003; (ii) yes, inspector’s order No 00327 - I table a copy of that order; (iii) no; and (iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant. (2) No, however it found that Mr Anderson’s inspection was inadequate. (3) No, however the board warned Mr Anderson that he had failed to fulfil his basic obligation as a licensed electrical contractor by not providing a comprehensive inspection and a detailed report that truly reflected the condition of the electrical installation (4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
(4) As at October 2002 had the Electrical Licensing Board released guidelines on conducting visual electrical assessments of existing installations? I wonder whether the minister heard that question, as I had trouble hearing myself. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for so eloquently reading the question; I was able to hear it. I thank her for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following response - (1) (i) May 2003; (ii) yes, inspector’s order No 00327 - I table a copy of that order; (iii) no; and (iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant. (2) No, however it found that Mr Anderson’s inspection was inadequate. (3) No, however the board warned Mr Anderson that he had failed to fulfil his basic obligation as a licensed electrical contractor by not providing a comprehensive inspection and a detailed report that truly reflected the condition of the electrical installation (4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
I wonder whether the minister heard that question, as I had trouble hearing myself. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for so eloquently reading the question; I was able to hear it. I thank her for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following response - (1) (i) May 2003; (ii) yes, inspector’s order No 00327 - I table a copy of that order; (iii) no; and (iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant. (2) No, however it found that Mr Anderson’s inspection was inadequate. (3) No, however the board warned Mr Anderson that he had failed to fulfil his basic obligation as a licensed electrical contractor by not providing a comprehensive inspection and a detailed report that truly reflected the condition of the electrical installation (4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for so eloquently reading the question; I was able to hear it. I thank her for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following response - (1) (i) May 2003; (ii) yes, inspector’s order No 00327 - I table a copy of that order; (iii) no; and (iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant. (2) No, however it found that Mr Anderson’s inspection was inadequate. (3) No, however the board warned Mr Anderson that he had failed to fulfil his basic obligation as a licensed electrical contractor by not providing a comprehensive inspection and a detailed report that truly reflected the condition of the electrical installation (4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for so eloquently reading the question; I was able to hear it. I thank her for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following response - (1) (i) May 2003; (ii) yes, inspector’s order No 00327 - I table a copy of that order; (iii) no; and (iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant. (2) No, however it found that Mr Anderson’s inspection was inadequate. (3) No, however the board warned Mr Anderson that he had failed to fulfil his basic obligation as a licensed electrical contractor by not providing a comprehensive inspection and a detailed report that truly reflected the condition of the electrical installation (4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
(1) (i) May 2003; (ii) yes, inspector’s order No 00327 - I table a copy of that order; (iii) no; and (iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant. (2) No, however it found that Mr Anderson’s inspection was inadequate. (3) No, however the board warned Mr Anderson that he had failed to fulfil his basic obligation as a licensed electrical contractor by not providing a comprehensive inspection and a detailed report that truly reflected the condition of the electrical installation (4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
(iii) no; and (iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant.
(iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant.
(b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant.
(c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant.
(d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant.
(e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant.
(f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant.
(g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant.
(3) No, however the board warned Mr Anderson that he had failed to fulfil his basic obligation as a licensed electrical contractor by not providing a comprehensive inspection and a detailed report that truly reflected the condition of the electrical installation (4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
(4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
[See paper No 2603.]
(1) In relation to an inspection of the electrical wiring at the premises by Mr Ross Reid, a senior electrical inspector at the Energy Safety Division - (i) when did Mr Reid carry out his inspection; (ii) was a report written subsequent to Mr Reid’s inspection of the premises; and, if so, will the minister table a copy of that report; (iii) did Mr Reid determine that the electrical wiring in the house was unsafe at the time of inspection; and (iv) did Mr Reid test the electrical wiring at the premises; and, if so, what was the result of the test? (2) Did the Energy Safety Division find that Mr Anderson had breached specific rules or regulations, including the Electricity (Licensing) Regulations 1991? (3) Has the Electrical Licensing Board taken or does the board intend to take disciplinary action against Mr Anderson on this matter? (4) As at October 2002 had the Electrical Licensing Board released guidelines on conducting visual electrical assessments of existing installations? I wonder whether the minister heard that question, as I had trouble hearing myself. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for so eloquently reading the question; I was able to hear it. I thank her for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following response - (1) (i) May 2003; (ii) yes, inspector’s order No 00327 - I table a copy of that order; (iii) no; and (iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant. (2) No, however it found that Mr Anderson’s inspection was inadequate. (3) No, however the board warned Mr Anderson that he had failed to fulfil his basic obligation as a licensed electrical contractor by not providing a comprehensive inspection and a detailed report that truly reflected the condition of the electrical installation (4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
(ii) was a report written subsequent to Mr Reid’s inspection of the premises; and, if so, will the minister table a copy of that report; (iii) did Mr Reid determine that the electrical wiring in the house was unsafe at the time of inspection; and (iv) did Mr Reid test the electrical wiring at the premises; and, if so, what was the result of the test?
(iii) did Mr Reid determine that the electrical wiring in the house was unsafe at the time of inspection; and (iv) did Mr Reid test the electrical wiring at the premises; and, if so, what was the result of the test?
(iv) did Mr Reid test the electrical wiring at the premises; and, if so, what was the result of the test?
(3) Has the Electrical Licensing Board taken or does the board intend to take disciplinary action against Mr Anderson on this matter? (4) As at October 2002 had the Electrical Licensing Board released guidelines on conducting visual electrical assessments of existing installations? I wonder whether the minister heard that question, as I had trouble hearing myself. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for so eloquently reading the question; I was able to hear it. I thank her for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following response - (1) (i) May 2003; (ii) yes, inspector’s order No 00327 - I table a copy of that order; (iii) no; and (iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant. (2) No, however it found that Mr Anderson’s inspection was inadequate. (3) No, however the board warned Mr Anderson that he had failed to fulfil his basic obligation as a licensed electrical contractor by not providing a comprehensive inspection and a detailed report that truly reflected the condition of the electrical installation (4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
(4) As at October 2002 had the Electrical Licensing Board released guidelines on conducting visual electrical assessments of existing installations? I wonder whether the minister heard that question, as I had trouble hearing myself. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for so eloquently reading the question; I was able to hear it. I thank her for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following response - (1) (i) May 2003; (ii) yes, inspector’s order No 00327 - I table a copy of that order; (iii) no; and (iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant. (2) No, however it found that Mr Anderson’s inspection was inadequate. (3) No, however the board warned Mr Anderson that he had failed to fulfil his basic obligation as a licensed electrical contractor by not providing a comprehensive inspection and a detailed report that truly reflected the condition of the electrical installation (4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
I wonder whether the minister heard that question, as I had trouble hearing myself. Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for so eloquently reading the question; I was able to hear it. I thank her for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following response - (1) (i) May 2003; (ii) yes, inspector’s order No 00327 - I table a copy of that order; (iii) no; and (iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant. (2) No, however it found that Mr Anderson’s inspection was inadequate. (3) No, however the board warned Mr Anderson that he had failed to fulfil his basic obligation as a licensed electrical contractor by not providing a comprehensive inspection and a detailed report that truly reflected the condition of the electrical installation (4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
Hon NICK GRIFFITHS replied: I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for so eloquently reading the question; I was able to hear it. I thank her for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following response - (1) (i) May 2003; (ii) yes, inspector’s order No 00327 - I table a copy of that order; (iii) no; and (iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant. (2) No, however it found that Mr Anderson’s inspection was inadequate. (3) No, however the board warned Mr Anderson that he had failed to fulfil his basic obligation as a licensed electrical contractor by not providing a comprehensive inspection and a detailed report that truly reflected the condition of the electrical installation (4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
I thank Hon Robyn McSweeney for so eloquently reading the question; I was able to hear it. I thank her for some notice of this question. The Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection has provided the following response - (1) (i) May 2003; (ii) yes, inspector’s order No 00327 - I table a copy of that order; (iii) no; and (iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant. (2) No, however it found that Mr Anderson’s inspection was inadequate. (3) No, however the board warned Mr Anderson that he had failed to fulfil his basic obligation as a licensed electrical contractor by not providing a comprehensive inspection and a detailed report that truly reflected the condition of the electrical installation (4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
(1) (i) May 2003; (ii) yes, inspector’s order No 00327 - I table a copy of that order; (iii) no; and (iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant. (2) No, however it found that Mr Anderson’s inspection was inadequate. (3) No, however the board warned Mr Anderson that he had failed to fulfil his basic obligation as a licensed electrical contractor by not providing a comprehensive inspection and a detailed report that truly reflected the condition of the electrical installation (4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
(iii) no; and (iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant.
(iv) yes, the test results are as follows - (a) visual inspection - satisfactory; (b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant.
(b) continuity of the earthing system - earth resistance test - compliant; (c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant.
(c) insulation resistance - compliant; (d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant.
(d) polarity - compliant; (e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant.
(e) fault-loop impedance - compliant; (f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant.
(f) operation of residual current devices - RCDs - compliant; and (g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant.
(g) functional test of the circuits in the installation - compliant.
(3) No, however the board warned Mr Anderson that he had failed to fulfil his basic obligation as a licensed electrical contractor by not providing a comprehensive inspection and a detailed report that truly reflected the condition of the electrical installation (4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
(4) No, the guidelines were released after this date. [See paper No 2603.]
[See paper No 2603.]
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.