❓ Ms. Mettam questions the Premier about a controversial agreement with Nicheliving, alleging preferential treatment and financial burden on taxpayers. The Premier defends the agreement, criticizes the opposition's proposed solutions, and accuses Ms. Mettam of inaccuracies.
AnsweredQoN 659Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
NICHELIVING —
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL APPEAL AGREEMENT
659. Ms L. METTAM to the Premier:
I refer to the extraordinary
agreement between this government and Nicheliving, which has not been provided
to other builders who have faced similar
circumstances, which sees WA taxpayers on the hook for insurance payments of approximately $40 million while the directors will not pay a cent.
(1) Can the
Premier confirm that Nicheliving was a member of the Labor Business Roundtable
and attended cash-for-access events with senior Labor members of Parliament?
(2) Did Nicheliving donate to the WA
Labor Party over the past four years; and, if so, how much?
Point of Order
The SPEAKER : Sorry, Premier.
I am going to hear from either the Leader of the House or the member for
Cannington. They both sought the call at the same time. Leader of the House.
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN : The point
of order is, of course, in regard to the fact that the Premier is not
responsible for party operations, so I think that the question is out of order.
The SPEAKER : The majority of
that question is out of order. I am not sure whether you can discern which
parts were not, but if you would like to re-ask the question with only those
parts that are in order and do fall under the Premier's role as Premier
and leader.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Ms L. METTAM : Thank you. I refer
to the extraordinary agreement between the Premier's government and
Nicheliving, which sees WA taxpayers on the hook for insurance payments of
approximately $40 million, while the directors will not pay a cent. Why has
Nicheliving been given special treatment by this government while every other
builder that has faced similar circumstances has been forced to do it alone?
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL APPEAL AGREEMENT
659. Ms L. METTAM to the Premier:
I refer to the extraordinary
agreement between this government and Nicheliving, which has not been provided
to other builders who have faced similar
circumstances, which sees WA taxpayers on the hook for insurance payments of approximately $40 million while the directors will not pay a cent.
(1) Can the
Premier confirm that Nicheliving was a member of the Labor Business Roundtable
and attended cash-for-access events with senior Labor members of Parliament?
(2) Did Nicheliving donate to the WA
Labor Party over the past four years; and, if so, how much?
Point of Order
The SPEAKER : Sorry, Premier.
I am going to hear from either the Leader of the House or the member for
Cannington. They both sought the call at the same time. Leader of the House.
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN : The point
of order is, of course, in regard to the fact that the Premier is not
responsible for party operations, so I think that the question is out of order.
The SPEAKER : The majority of
that question is out of order. I am not sure whether you can discern which
parts were not, but if you would like to re-ask the question with only those
parts that are in order and do fall under the Premier's role as Premier
and leader.
Questions without Notice Resumed
Ms L. METTAM : Thank you. I refer
to the extraordinary agreement between the Premier's government and
Nicheliving, which sees WA taxpayers on the hook for insurance payments of
approximately $40 million, while the directors will not pay a cent. Why has
Nicheliving been given special treatment by this government while every other
builder that has faced similar circumstances has been forced to do it alone?
AnswerView source ↗
Of course, as we have come to expect
from questions from the member for Vasse, there are inaccuracies, there are premises that are at fault, and, quite frankly,
the utterances are deceiving and misleading. I just want to clarify a couple of things. Firstly, it is incorrect to say that we will pay $84 million in
payouts. The $84 million is an actuarial estimate and is the worst-case
scenario of the potential home indemnity insurance liability. It is not a bill;
it is simply a forecast of the interaction between the home indemnity insurance
fund and the payouts associated with this outcome. This outcome was inevitable
in the context of Nicheliving losing its building licence. This will bring
forward the deregistration of Nicheliving's building licence to make
sure that we can get relief to those customers earlier. I take from the member
for Vasse's comments that members opposite would like those people to
face this legal process being drawn out for as long as the lawyers like and to
ignore the plight of those poor customers. We will let those customers know
that that is the Leader of the Liberal Party's solution to the
situation, and that she is happy for them to stay languishing, waiting for
their homes to be built, while this legal process slowly unfolds.
The cost is principally offset by
the HII premiums that QBE receives from builders when new HII policies are
issued. The funds in the reinsurance account are surplus to HII premiums
collected in previous periods. They are not taxpayer funds. Ultimately, we
underwrite the HII fund, but this is an actuarial estimate, not an estimate of
cost to Western Australian taxpayers.
We look to those opposite for a policy
in relation to this.
Mr D.T. Punch : We couldn't
find one.
Mr R.H. COOK : Members, we did find one policy
utterance from the Leader of the Opposition back in June last year, when the
Nationals WA committed $20 million to support families who were waiting for
homes to be built by Nicheliving. Essentially, their solution to this situation
would be that taxpayers spend $20 million to not build a single new home. They
were simply happy for this whole sorry saga to drag out for as long as the
lawyers wanted it to, rather than act on behalf of those people who are waiting
for their homes to be built. This is a great example of the difference between
a WA Labor government that is providing leadership and supporting those who are
least well-off to defend themselves in this
circumstance, and members opposite, who, quite frankly, are irresponsible with the state's finances and bring no solution to the table for these
issues.
I
know that, ultimately, members opposite wish to be in an alliance if they are
to form government. When the member for
Vasse asks her supplementary question, perhaps she can talk about how she would
defend the $20 million policy to not build a single Nicheliving home.
The SPEAKER : Before I give
the opportunity to ask the supplementary question, I ask the member to please
not take up the Premier's suggestion. You are not able to enter into an
argument; you are able to ask a short, simple, direct supplementary question.
from questions from the member for Vasse, there are inaccuracies, there are premises that are at fault, and, quite frankly,
the utterances are deceiving and misleading. I just want to clarify a couple of things. Firstly, it is incorrect to say that we will pay $84 million in
payouts. The $84 million is an actuarial estimate and is the worst-case
scenario of the potential home indemnity insurance liability. It is not a bill;
it is simply a forecast of the interaction between the home indemnity insurance
fund and the payouts associated with this outcome. This outcome was inevitable
in the context of Nicheliving losing its building licence. This will bring
forward the deregistration of Nicheliving's building licence to make
sure that we can get relief to those customers earlier. I take from the member
for Vasse's comments that members opposite would like those people to
face this legal process being drawn out for as long as the lawyers like and to
ignore the plight of those poor customers. We will let those customers know
that that is the Leader of the Liberal Party's solution to the
situation, and that she is happy for them to stay languishing, waiting for
their homes to be built, while this legal process slowly unfolds.
The cost is principally offset by
the HII premiums that QBE receives from builders when new HII policies are
issued. The funds in the reinsurance account are surplus to HII premiums
collected in previous periods. They are not taxpayer funds. Ultimately, we
underwrite the HII fund, but this is an actuarial estimate, not an estimate of
cost to Western Australian taxpayers.
We look to those opposite for a policy
in relation to this.
Mr D.T. Punch : We couldn't
find one.
Mr R.H. COOK : Members, we did find one policy
utterance from the Leader of the Opposition back in June last year, when the
Nationals WA committed $20 million to support families who were waiting for
homes to be built by Nicheliving. Essentially, their solution to this situation
would be that taxpayers spend $20 million to not build a single new home. They
were simply happy for this whole sorry saga to drag out for as long as the
lawyers wanted it to, rather than act on behalf of those people who are waiting
for their homes to be built. This is a great example of the difference between
a WA Labor government that is providing leadership and supporting those who are
least well-off to defend themselves in this
circumstance, and members opposite, who, quite frankly, are irresponsible with the state's finances and bring no solution to the table for these
issues.
I
know that, ultimately, members opposite wish to be in an alliance if they are
to form government. When the member for
Vasse asks her supplementary question, perhaps she can talk about how she would
defend the $20 million policy to not build a single Nicheliving home.
The SPEAKER : Before I give
the opportunity to ask the supplementary question, I ask the member to please
not take up the Premier's suggestion. You are not able to enter into an
argument; you are able to ask a short, simple, direct supplementary question.
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.