❓ Mr Rundle questions the Water Corporation's response to a sewage spill that damaged a retiree's home. The Minister defends the Water Corp's actions, citing standard procedures and legal constraints due to an Ombudsman investigation.
AnsweredQoN 557Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Water Corporation—Property damage
557. Mr Peter Rundle to
the Minister for Water:
I refer to the
Spearwood sewerage diversion that inundated Gold Street in South Fremantle,
flooding the home of a 66-year-old retiree and causing more than $100,000 in
damage. Here is a picture of this property, which demonstrates that it is several
centimetres deep in sewage.
(1) Why has the Water Corporation refused to take
full responsibility for this failure, leaving a retiree to bear the cost of
damage caused by the government's infrastructure?
(2) How can the minister justify a
government-owned utility walking away from a mess of its own making while
claiming to prioritise customer service and community safety?
557. Mr Peter Rundle to
the Minister for Water:
I refer to the
Spearwood sewerage diversion that inundated Gold Street in South Fremantle,
flooding the home of a 66-year-old retiree and causing more than $100,000 in
damage. Here is a picture of this property, which demonstrates that it is several
centimetres deep in sewage.
(1) Why has the Water Corporation refused to take
full responsibility for this failure, leaving a retiree to bear the cost of
damage caused by the government's infrastructure?
(2) How can the minister justify a
government-owned utility walking away from a mess of its own making while
claiming to prioritise customer service and community safety?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2) I understand the distress caused
to Mr Allison and acknowledge the significant impact on his property. In fact,
I acknowledge the distress that was caused to a lot of members of the community
as a consequence of the Spearwood spill and the problems within the system when
sewage was diverted. In relation to the overflow issues that occurred across
the network, Mr Allison's property was the only one in that area at which wastewater
entered the home, and that was in part due to the internal plumbing configuration
and the low ground relief of the property itself. But that does not take away
the fact that the property was inundated. Water Corp followed its standard
processes. It responded by arranging a clean-up, involving a loss adjuster,
referring Mr Allison to his insurer and conducting an independent plumbing
inspection. It offered financial support, similar to whatever affected
customers received, including reimbursement of insurance excess payments for uninsured
losses and a relief package. I am advised that Mr Allison received a goodwill
payment on 17 September. The advice I have received from Water Corporation is
that Mr Allison wants Water Corp to cover the costs of the property damage. The
normal process is that customers file a claim with their insurer in the first
instance, a standard process that has been in place for many years, including
the periods when the member for Roe's party was in government. Water Corp said
it would make a further assessment when that claim was finalised.
My advice from Water Corp is
that Mr Allison is having difficulties with his insurer. Water Corp was in
direct contact with Mr Allison to ensure that his concerns were addressed and
that he received appropriate support. I have been advised that Water
Corporation has been in contact with Mr Allison to support him, but since he
has now lodged a complaint with the Energy and Water Ombudsman, Water
Corporation is unable to engage with Mr Allison until the investigation is
complete.
Under the Water Services Act
2012 and associated regulations, once a complaint is formally referred to the Ombudsman,
the service provider—in this case, the Water Corporation—must
cease direct engagement with the customer about the disputed matter to preserve
the Ombudsman's independence and impartiality. This is a standard requirement
under the Ombudsman scheme rules to avoid interference with the investigation
and ensure procedural fairness.
I
read the member for Roe's commentary in The West Australian this afternoon.
All I can say is that as the shadow Minister for Water, if he does not know the
law and rules of how the Ombudsman operates, he should reconsider his position.
to Mr Allison and acknowledge the significant impact on his property. In fact,
I acknowledge the distress that was caused to a lot of members of the community
as a consequence of the Spearwood spill and the problems within the system when
sewage was diverted. In relation to the overflow issues that occurred across
the network, Mr Allison's property was the only one in that area at which wastewater
entered the home, and that was in part due to the internal plumbing configuration
and the low ground relief of the property itself. But that does not take away
the fact that the property was inundated. Water Corp followed its standard
processes. It responded by arranging a clean-up, involving a loss adjuster,
referring Mr Allison to his insurer and conducting an independent plumbing
inspection. It offered financial support, similar to whatever affected
customers received, including reimbursement of insurance excess payments for uninsured
losses and a relief package. I am advised that Mr Allison received a goodwill
payment on 17 September. The advice I have received from Water Corporation is
that Mr Allison wants Water Corp to cover the costs of the property damage. The
normal process is that customers file a claim with their insurer in the first
instance, a standard process that has been in place for many years, including
the periods when the member for Roe's party was in government. Water Corp said
it would make a further assessment when that claim was finalised.
My advice from Water Corp is
that Mr Allison is having difficulties with his insurer. Water Corp was in
direct contact with Mr Allison to ensure that his concerns were addressed and
that he received appropriate support. I have been advised that Water
Corporation has been in contact with Mr Allison to support him, but since he
has now lodged a complaint with the Energy and Water Ombudsman, Water
Corporation is unable to engage with Mr Allison until the investigation is
complete.
Under the Water Services Act
2012 and associated regulations, once a complaint is formally referred to the Ombudsman,
the service provider—in this case, the Water Corporation—must
cease direct engagement with the customer about the disputed matter to preserve
the Ombudsman's independence and impartiality. This is a standard requirement
under the Ombudsman scheme rules to avoid interference with the investigation
and ensure procedural fairness.
I
read the member for Roe's commentary in The West Australian this afternoon.
All I can say is that as the shadow Minister for Water, if he does not know the
law and rules of how the Ombudsman operates, he should reconsider his position.
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.