❓ A parliamentary question probing the WA government's Stolen Wages Reparation Scheme, focusing on record-keeping, consultation, and the basis for the ex gratia payment amount. The Minister's answers reveal a lack of individual record checks and reliance on a Taskforce report hampered by data scarcity.
AnsweredQoN 951Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Minister for Aboriginal Affair's answer to question on notice No. 617, regarding Ms Bonnie Seela's claim under the Stolen Wages Reparation Scheme WA, and I ask: (a) in
relation to question (c) about how Ms Seela can access the records that were
used in the claims process and the Minister's answer that "she can obtain a copy of her
application by contacting Ms Lucy Gunn, Executive Director, Community
Development at the Department of Aboriginal Affairs", does the Minister mean to indicate that no
checks or searches were undertaken for the purpose of assessing Ms Seela's
application as to whether the Government in fact has records, or records exist,
relating to the time she spent working at Balgo Mission; (b) taking
into account the evidence by Mr Stephen Kinnane to the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Affairs Committee in 2006 that "in WA generally the trust
accounts were administered on people’s personal files", to what extent did the Stolen Wages Taskforce look at personal files,
in advising Government through its report or otherwise, about the availability
of trust account records; (c) in
how many cases, where applications were assessed as eligible under the Stolen
Wages Scheme, was a check or search undertaken as to whether the Government in
fact has records or whether records do still exist, relating to: (i) the income payable to the person; (ii) the amount of income actually paid; and (iii) the amount, if any, held in a trust account; (d) in
how many cases where applications were assessed as eligible under the Stolen
Wages Scheme, was the applicant: (i) told what records the Government has, or which still exist, relating to income withheld from them; and (ii) provided with a copy of this information; (e) noting that the Stolen Wages Taskforce was appointed by the former Government in
May 2007, and it reported in June 2008, and that the Government then took until
6 March 2012 to release the report being the same day that the Minister
announced the commencement of the Stolen Wages Scheme, what opportunity did Ms
Seela and other Aboriginal people affected by the "stolen wages issue" have to
consider the Taskforce report and make their comments to the Government about
it before the Government finalised its position and announced the Scheme; (f) noting that the
recommendations by the Stolen Wages Taskforce included a recommendation that
the Government make ex gratia payments to individuals although the Taskforce did
not indicate the amount in its report, did the Government receive advice from
the Taskforce about the amount of the ex gratia payment: (i) if yes to (f), when was this advice received; (ii) why did the Government not made this advice public; and (iii) will the Government now make this advice public; (g) the
Stolen Wages Taskforce Report stated that "actuarial modelling has been used
to estimate the amounts of money and the potential impact of the loss of this
money." (page 6) and " ‘While the Taskforce has not been able to
identify records to establish precise amounts of money held in trust accounts,
actuarial modelling has been undertaken to determine likely scenarios"
(page 80), is the Minister aware of what assumptions were used for this
modelling and what the modelling indicated; and (h) did the Minister receive a copy of the actuarial
modelling referred to in the Taskforce Report: (i) if yes to (h), why has this information not been made public; and (ii) is the Government now willing to make public: (A) the actuarial modelling referred to in the Taskforce? (B) any other actuarial modelling relating to the stolen wages issue received by the Government?
relation to question (c) about how Ms Seela can access the records that were
used in the claims process and the Minister's answer that "she can obtain a copy of her
application by contacting Ms Lucy Gunn, Executive Director, Community
Development at the Department of Aboriginal Affairs", does the Minister mean to indicate that no
checks or searches were undertaken for the purpose of assessing Ms Seela's
application as to whether the Government in fact has records, or records exist,
relating to the time she spent working at Balgo Mission; (b) taking
into account the evidence by Mr Stephen Kinnane to the Senate Legal and
Constitutional Affairs Committee in 2006 that "in WA generally the trust
accounts were administered on people’s personal files", to what extent did the Stolen Wages Taskforce look at personal files,
in advising Government through its report or otherwise, about the availability
of trust account records; (c) in
how many cases, where applications were assessed as eligible under the Stolen
Wages Scheme, was a check or search undertaken as to whether the Government in
fact has records or whether records do still exist, relating to: (i) the income payable to the person; (ii) the amount of income actually paid; and (iii) the amount, if any, held in a trust account; (d) in
how many cases where applications were assessed as eligible under the Stolen
Wages Scheme, was the applicant: (i) told what records the Government has, or which still exist, relating to income withheld from them; and (ii) provided with a copy of this information; (e) noting that the Stolen Wages Taskforce was appointed by the former Government in
May 2007, and it reported in June 2008, and that the Government then took until
6 March 2012 to release the report being the same day that the Minister
announced the commencement of the Stolen Wages Scheme, what opportunity did Ms
Seela and other Aboriginal people affected by the "stolen wages issue" have to
consider the Taskforce report and make their comments to the Government about
it before the Government finalised its position and announced the Scheme; (f) noting that the
recommendations by the Stolen Wages Taskforce included a recommendation that
the Government make ex gratia payments to individuals although the Taskforce did
not indicate the amount in its report, did the Government receive advice from
the Taskforce about the amount of the ex gratia payment: (i) if yes to (f), when was this advice received; (ii) why did the Government not made this advice public; and (iii) will the Government now make this advice public; (g) the
Stolen Wages Taskforce Report stated that "actuarial modelling has been used
to estimate the amounts of money and the potential impact of the loss of this
money." (page 6) and " ‘While the Taskforce has not been able to
identify records to establish precise amounts of money held in trust accounts,
actuarial modelling has been undertaken to determine likely scenarios"
(page 80), is the Minister aware of what assumptions were used for this
modelling and what the modelling indicated; and (h) did the Minister receive a copy of the actuarial
modelling referred to in the Taskforce Report: (i) if yes to (h), why has this information not been made public; and (ii) is the Government now willing to make public: (A) the actuarial modelling referred to in the Taskforce? (B) any other actuarial modelling relating to the stolen wages issue received by the Government?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
6 May 2014
Responded by
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs
Response time
49 days
(a) No.
(b) The methodology used by the Stolen Wages Taskforce is documented in the Taskforce Report of 2008, which is publically available. This included accessing and reviewing personal files.
(c) (i-iii) None. The State Government's response to the issue of stolen wages was largely based on advice from the Stolen Wages Taskforce which acknowledged that the lack of surviving records and the passage of time meant that it was not possible for the WA Government to identify and repay the actual amount of monies that were withheld. Therefore, the $2,000 ex gratia payment offered was not an attempt to repay wages that were withheld, but rather an acknowledgement that the practice of stolen wages did occur.
(d) (i-ii) Refer to (c).
(e) Extensive consultations were undertaken by the Stolen Wages Taskforce. The Taskforce received over 500 submissions and held 62 meetings in 58 towns and communities throughout Western Australia, with approximately 920 attendees.
(f) No.
(i-iii) Not applicable.
(g) Yes.
(h) Yes.
(i) - (ii) The Stolen Wages Taskforce attempted to undertake actuarial modelling using a substantial range of archival and published data to build a database of payments in the review period. Due to the complexity of trust accounts in Western Australia, the significant lack of surviving records and the passage of time, the actuarial model could not estimate the true value or full impact of any compensation.
Therefore, it would not be possible for the State Government to identify and repay the actual amount of monies that were withheld from each person. The $2,000 ex gratia payment offered is not an attempt to repay wages that were withheld, but simply as an acknowledgement by the State Government that the practice of Stolen Wages did occur.
(b) The methodology used by the Stolen Wages Taskforce is documented in the Taskforce Report of 2008, which is publically available. This included accessing and reviewing personal files.
(c) (i-iii) None. The State Government's response to the issue of stolen wages was largely based on advice from the Stolen Wages Taskforce which acknowledged that the lack of surviving records and the passage of time meant that it was not possible for the WA Government to identify and repay the actual amount of monies that were withheld. Therefore, the $2,000 ex gratia payment offered was not an attempt to repay wages that were withheld, but rather an acknowledgement that the practice of stolen wages did occur.
(d) (i-ii) Refer to (c).
(e) Extensive consultations were undertaken by the Stolen Wages Taskforce. The Taskforce received over 500 submissions and held 62 meetings in 58 towns and communities throughout Western Australia, with approximately 920 attendees.
(f) No.
(i-iii) Not applicable.
(g) Yes.
(h) Yes.
(i) - (ii) The Stolen Wages Taskforce attempted to undertake actuarial modelling using a substantial range of archival and published data to build a database of payments in the review period. Due to the complexity of trust accounts in Western Australia, the significant lack of surviving records and the passage of time, the actuarial model could not estimate the true value or full impact of any compensation.
Therefore, it would not be possible for the State Government to identify and repay the actual amount of monies that were withheld from each person. The $2,000 ex gratia payment offered is not an attempt to repay wages that were withheld, but simply as an acknowledgement by the State Government that the practice of Stolen Wages did occur.
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.