A parliamentary question on notice regarding the operation of a board under the Consumer Protection portfolio, specifically addressing a period without board members and its impact on prosecutions and policy development. The Minister's response clarifies the timeline of appointments, the handling of breaches, and the board's role in developing a position paper.

AnsweredQoN 3050Legislative Assembly
Asked
26 February 2008
Portfolio
Consumer Protection

QuestionView source ↗

(a) page 5 of the report states that much of the year was spent without the Board actually having any members. Is this true; and
(i) if yes, why was this the case;
(b) page 6 states that due to the fact that there were no Board members, no prosecutions could be conducted. Does the Minister agree that this is not an acceptable situation; and
(i) if yes, why was this situation allowed to occur; and
(c) does the Minister accept the statement on page 9 of the report that the State Government made the Board’s job more difficult by forcing it to cooperate with the development of a position paper without a full complement of Board Members; and
(i) if yes, why did the Minister not focus on appointing new Board members before doing the position paper?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
1 April 2008
Responded by
Minister for Consumer Protection
Response time
35 days
(a) Yes. The appointment of members was not finalised until 24 October 2006. During the period before the appointments were made, consideration was being given by the then Minister to the future regulation of the industry, and therefore, the role of the Board.
(b) In 2006, there were 801 salon inspections from which 193 breaches were discovered. Of those 193 breaches, 186 were resolved. Seven failed to comply and were recommended for prosecution. Those seven people were successfully prosecuted in 2007.
The lack of Board members had no impact on the capacity of the Board to investigate potential breaches. However it could have affected the timing of prosecution and if this was the case this is unfortunate. I am pleased however that the Board prosecutions occurred early in 2007.
(c) No, the position paper was developed by the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection and circulated for comment to all stakeholders, including the Board. The Board was not forced to cooperate with the development of a position paper.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more