Mr Tinley questions the Minister for Housing on whether specific scenarios related to maintenance job orders constitute fraud. The Minister acknowledges challenges in the transition to a new contractor model but states no evidence of fraud has been found.

AnsweredQoN 541Legislative Assembly
Asked
25 September 2012
Portfolio
Housing

QuestionView source ↗

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING — MAINTENANCE
JOB ORDERS
541. Mr P.C. TINLEY to the Minister for Housing:
I refer to the minister's statement in this house on
14 August in relation to the government's public housing maintenance
housing contracts. The minister said —
The member wanted to know how many noncompliant job orders had been
identified as fraudulent. The answer is none. If the member has any evidence of
fraud, he should provide that evidence, and I can assure him that it will be
fully investigated.
(1) Is claiming payment for maintenance work that was never
done fraudulent?
(2) Is
claiming payment for work that was not required or claiming that it took much
longer than it actually did fraudulent?
(3) Is
claiming for completely fabricated job orders such as for resetting clay tiles
when the property in question has a tin roof fraudulent?
The
SPEAKER : Before the minister answers that question, I counsel all
members in this place with respect to whether they are seeking legal advice—member
for Willagee, I am not asking you to answer that at the moment—that a
hypothetical question may be seeking a legal response. I will give the minister
an opportunity to answer. I direct my comments to all members in this place
with respect to questions asked that require some sort of legal response.

AnswerView source ↗

I thank the
member for Willagee for the question.
(1)–(3)
Something that I will go back over, because I think it is really important, is
that this government certainly acknowledges the challenges that we had with the
implementation of the new head contractor model. It was a challenge to manage
moving from a system in which the department dealt with some 700 contractors to
a system in which, effectively, there are three contractors. Now we have been
able to bed down the processes within the Department of Housing and processes
within the management of the head contractors to a sufficient level that we
feel confident—I certainly feel confident—that we are able to
manage a whole range of issues that came to the fore when this process was
first implemented. I took the question on notice that the member for Willagee
raised previously about whether something was fraudulent and I asked the
Department of Housing whether it had any evidence to show that there were
fraudulent issues, and the answer was no. But the department does acknowledge
that the processes of managing the transition from the 700 contractors that we
had to the head contractor model has meant that a whole range of noncompliance
issues came to the fore that we are now having to manage and have been managing
very well. We now have an audit process that effectively goes over all the past
noncompliance issues that have been raised.
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected.
The SPEAKER :
Member for Girrawheen!
Mr D.T. REDMAN : We
have an audit process that is going over all the issues of the issuing of
contracts and the payments of those contracts even to the point of actually
having tradespeople in the Department of Housing's employ to ensure
that the level and standard of work being done complies with the standards we
would expect in business. I am confident that that is the outcome. I have asked
the very direct question, as prompted by the member for Willagee prior to this
question, about fraudulent behaviour. Nothing I have been given suggests that
anything is fraudulent to the point of taking it to court. That is the position
that I have had advice on to this point. I am confident that since then we have
put in place processes to manage the challenges that we certainly had in that
transition period.

Explore WA Government Data

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

Explore more