❓ Hon. Alison Xamon questions the Minister for Commerce regarding WorkSafe WA's handling of asbestos removal complaints at 8a Carbon Court, Osborne Park, specifically why further complaints weren't included in a previous answer. The Minister acknowledges an administrative error and outlines steps to prevent recurrence.
AnsweredQoN 721Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
ASBESTOS REMOVAL — COMPLAINTS TO WORKSAFE
I refer to the answer to my question on notice 4255 regarding WorkSafe WA’s response to complaints made about the process of chrysotile asbestos removal at 8a Carbon Court, Osborne Park. (1) Did WorkSafe receive further complaints about this issue on 29 March, 4 April, 12 April, 6 May, 7 May, 13 May and 16 August? (2) If yes to (1), why were these dates not included in the original answer? (3) If no to (1), can the minister explain why these contacts with the complainant were not recorded? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN
I refer to the answer to my question on notice 4255 regarding WorkSafe WA’s response to complaints made about the process of chrysotile asbestos removal at 8a Carbon Court, Osborne Park. (1) Did WorkSafe receive further complaints about this issue on 29 March, 4 April, 12 April, 6 May, 7 May, 13 May and 16 August? (2) If yes to (1), why were these dates not included in the original answer? (3) If no to (1), can the minister explain why these contacts with the complainant were not recorded? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Correspondence containing further information in relation to the original complaint was submitted on the listed dates. (2) The correspondence was addressed to the director undertaking the investigation and placed on a different file. As the director was away at the time the previous answer was provided, the file was not identified. The correspondence of 16 August 2011 was received after the necessary advice was provided in relation to the parliamentary question. At the time of receipt, the director noted the correspondence and considered it to be the provision of additional information to the original complaint rather than the raising of a new complaint. It is acknowledged that, in this instance, the omission of identification of the additional correspondence was an administrative error, and procedures to prevent a similar occurrence will be developed. (3) Not applicable.
(1) Did WorkSafe receive further complaints about this issue on 29 March, 4 April, 12 April, 6 May, 7 May, 13 May and 16 August? (2) If yes to (1), why were these dates not included in the original answer? (3) If no to (1), can the minister explain why these contacts with the complainant were not recorded? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Correspondence containing further information in relation to the original complaint was submitted on the listed dates. (2) The correspondence was addressed to the director undertaking the investigation and placed on a different file. As the director was away at the time the previous answer was provided, the file was not identified. The correspondence of 16 August 2011 was received after the necessary advice was provided in relation to the parliamentary question. At the time of receipt, the director noted the correspondence and considered it to be the provision of additional information to the original complaint rather than the raising of a new complaint. It is acknowledged that, in this instance, the omission of identification of the additional correspondence was an administrative error, and procedures to prevent a similar occurrence will be developed. (3) Not applicable.
(2) If yes to (1), why were these dates not included in the original answer? (3) If no to (1), can the minister explain why these contacts with the complainant were not recorded? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Correspondence containing further information in relation to the original complaint was submitted on the listed dates. (2) The correspondence was addressed to the director undertaking the investigation and placed on a different file. As the director was away at the time the previous answer was provided, the file was not identified. The correspondence of 16 August 2011 was received after the necessary advice was provided in relation to the parliamentary question. At the time of receipt, the director noted the correspondence and considered it to be the provision of additional information to the original complaint rather than the raising of a new complaint. It is acknowledged that, in this instance, the omission of identification of the additional correspondence was an administrative error, and procedures to prevent a similar occurrence will be developed. (3) Not applicable.
(3) If no to (1), can the minister explain why these contacts with the complainant were not recorded? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Correspondence containing further information in relation to the original complaint was submitted on the listed dates. (2) The correspondence was addressed to the director undertaking the investigation and placed on a different file. As the director was away at the time the previous answer was provided, the file was not identified. The correspondence of 16 August 2011 was received after the necessary advice was provided in relation to the parliamentary question. At the time of receipt, the director noted the correspondence and considered it to be the provision of additional information to the original complaint rather than the raising of a new complaint. It is acknowledged that, in this instance, the omission of identification of the additional correspondence was an administrative error, and procedures to prevent a similar occurrence will be developed. (3) Not applicable.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Correspondence containing further information in relation to the original complaint was submitted on the listed dates. (2) The correspondence was addressed to the director undertaking the investigation and placed on a different file. As the director was away at the time the previous answer was provided, the file was not identified. The correspondence of 16 August 2011 was received after the necessary advice was provided in relation to the parliamentary question. At the time of receipt, the director noted the correspondence and considered it to be the provision of additional information to the original complaint rather than the raising of a new complaint. It is acknowledged that, in this instance, the omission of identification of the additional correspondence was an administrative error, and procedures to prevent a similar occurrence will be developed. (3) Not applicable.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Correspondence containing further information in relation to the original complaint was submitted on the listed dates. (2) The correspondence was addressed to the director undertaking the investigation and placed on a different file. As the director was away at the time the previous answer was provided, the file was not identified. The correspondence of 16 August 2011 was received after the necessary advice was provided in relation to the parliamentary question. At the time of receipt, the director noted the correspondence and considered it to be the provision of additional information to the original complaint rather than the raising of a new complaint. It is acknowledged that, in this instance, the omission of identification of the additional correspondence was an administrative error, and procedures to prevent a similar occurrence will be developed. (3) Not applicable.
(1) Correspondence containing further information in relation to the original complaint was submitted on the listed dates. (2) The correspondence was addressed to the director undertaking the investigation and placed on a different file. As the director was away at the time the previous answer was provided, the file was not identified. The correspondence of 16 August 2011 was received after the necessary advice was provided in relation to the parliamentary question. At the time of receipt, the director noted the correspondence and considered it to be the provision of additional information to the original complaint rather than the raising of a new complaint. It is acknowledged that, in this instance, the omission of identification of the additional correspondence was an administrative error, and procedures to prevent a similar occurrence will be developed. (3) Not applicable.
(2) The correspondence was addressed to the director undertaking the investigation and placed on a different file. As the director was away at the time the previous answer was provided, the file was not identified. The correspondence of 16 August 2011 was received after the necessary advice was provided in relation to the parliamentary question. At the time of receipt, the director noted the correspondence and considered it to be the provision of additional information to the original complaint rather than the raising of a new complaint. It is acknowledged that, in this instance, the omission of identification of the additional correspondence was an administrative error, and procedures to prevent a similar occurrence will be developed. (3) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.
(1) Did WorkSafe receive further complaints about this issue on 29 March, 4 April, 12 April, 6 May, 7 May, 13 May and 16 August? (2) If yes to (1), why were these dates not included in the original answer? (3) If no to (1), can the minister explain why these contacts with the complainant were not recorded? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Correspondence containing further information in relation to the original complaint was submitted on the listed dates. (2) The correspondence was addressed to the director undertaking the investigation and placed on a different file. As the director was away at the time the previous answer was provided, the file was not identified. The correspondence of 16 August 2011 was received after the necessary advice was provided in relation to the parliamentary question. At the time of receipt, the director noted the correspondence and considered it to be the provision of additional information to the original complaint rather than the raising of a new complaint. It is acknowledged that, in this instance, the omission of identification of the additional correspondence was an administrative error, and procedures to prevent a similar occurrence will be developed. (3) Not applicable.
(2) If yes to (1), why were these dates not included in the original answer? (3) If no to (1), can the minister explain why these contacts with the complainant were not recorded? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Correspondence containing further information in relation to the original complaint was submitted on the listed dates. (2) The correspondence was addressed to the director undertaking the investigation and placed on a different file. As the director was away at the time the previous answer was provided, the file was not identified. The correspondence of 16 August 2011 was received after the necessary advice was provided in relation to the parliamentary question. At the time of receipt, the director noted the correspondence and considered it to be the provision of additional information to the original complaint rather than the raising of a new complaint. It is acknowledged that, in this instance, the omission of identification of the additional correspondence was an administrative error, and procedures to prevent a similar occurrence will be developed. (3) Not applicable.
(3) If no to (1), can the minister explain why these contacts with the complainant were not recorded? Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Correspondence containing further information in relation to the original complaint was submitted on the listed dates. (2) The correspondence was addressed to the director undertaking the investigation and placed on a different file. As the director was away at the time the previous answer was provided, the file was not identified. The correspondence of 16 August 2011 was received after the necessary advice was provided in relation to the parliamentary question. At the time of receipt, the director noted the correspondence and considered it to be the provision of additional information to the original complaint rather than the raising of a new complaint. It is acknowledged that, in this instance, the omission of identification of the additional correspondence was an administrative error, and procedures to prevent a similar occurrence will be developed. (3) Not applicable.
Hon SIMON O’BRIEN replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Correspondence containing further information in relation to the original complaint was submitted on the listed dates. (2) The correspondence was addressed to the director undertaking the investigation and placed on a different file. As the director was away at the time the previous answer was provided, the file was not identified. The correspondence of 16 August 2011 was received after the necessary advice was provided in relation to the parliamentary question. At the time of receipt, the director noted the correspondence and considered it to be the provision of additional information to the original complaint rather than the raising of a new complaint. It is acknowledged that, in this instance, the omission of identification of the additional correspondence was an administrative error, and procedures to prevent a similar occurrence will be developed. (3) Not applicable.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of this question. (1) Correspondence containing further information in relation to the original complaint was submitted on the listed dates. (2) The correspondence was addressed to the director undertaking the investigation and placed on a different file. As the director was away at the time the previous answer was provided, the file was not identified. The correspondence of 16 August 2011 was received after the necessary advice was provided in relation to the parliamentary question. At the time of receipt, the director noted the correspondence and considered it to be the provision of additional information to the original complaint rather than the raising of a new complaint. It is acknowledged that, in this instance, the omission of identification of the additional correspondence was an administrative error, and procedures to prevent a similar occurrence will be developed. (3) Not applicable.
(1) Correspondence containing further information in relation to the original complaint was submitted on the listed dates. (2) The correspondence was addressed to the director undertaking the investigation and placed on a different file. As the director was away at the time the previous answer was provided, the file was not identified. The correspondence of 16 August 2011 was received after the necessary advice was provided in relation to the parliamentary question. At the time of receipt, the director noted the correspondence and considered it to be the provision of additional information to the original complaint rather than the raising of a new complaint. It is acknowledged that, in this instance, the omission of identification of the additional correspondence was an administrative error, and procedures to prevent a similar occurrence will be developed. (3) Not applicable.
(2) The correspondence was addressed to the director undertaking the investigation and placed on a different file. As the director was away at the time the previous answer was provided, the file was not identified. The correspondence of 16 August 2011 was received after the necessary advice was provided in relation to the parliamentary question. At the time of receipt, the director noted the correspondence and considered it to be the provision of additional information to the original complaint rather than the raising of a new complaint. It is acknowledged that, in this instance, the omission of identification of the additional correspondence was an administrative error, and procedures to prevent a similar occurrence will be developed. (3) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.
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.