❓ Question regarding mandatory isolation fencing for new swimming pools, focusing on lack of consultation and financial burden. Minister acknowledges concerns but defends the regulation based on a pre-election commitment.
AnsweredQoN 871Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
NEW SWIMMING POOLS, ISOLATION FENCING
I refer to the minister’s regulations effective from 5 November 2001 to impose a requirement for mandatory isolation fencing for all new swimming pools. (1) Has the minister received representations from housing and swimming pool industry representatives complaining about the introduction of the regulations without consultation? (2) Is the substance of their submissions that the new regulations will impose a burden of millions of dollars upon the industry and potential swimming pool owners? (3) If so, what is the minister’s response to those claims? Will he now consider repealing those regulations? Hon TOM STEPHENS
I refer to the minister’s regulations effective from 5 November 2001 to impose a requirement for mandatory isolation fencing for all new swimming pools. (1) Has the minister received representations from housing and swimming pool industry representatives complaining about the introduction of the regulations without consultation? (2) Is the substance of their submissions that the new regulations will impose a burden of millions of dollars upon the industry and potential swimming pool owners? (3) If so, what is the minister’s response to those claims? Will he now consider repealing those regulations? Hon TOM STEPHENS
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I have received a large body of representations expressing concern or opposition to the regulations to which the member has referred. Sections of the industry have a reasonable complaint about the Government’s determination to proceed with this regulation. Their complaint is that the regulations were drafted without consultation; however, that is not strictly true. Consultation was conducted although the industry could legitimately argue that it was not a process of consultation in which it felt it could affect the outcome. Hon Simon O’Brien: That is not a valid consultation process. Hon TOM STEPHENS: We consulted about the manner and form of the regulation but the Government had given a pre-election commitment - Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
(1) Has the minister received representations from housing and swimming pool industry representatives complaining about the introduction of the regulations without consultation? (2) Is the substance of their submissions that the new regulations will impose a burden of millions of dollars upon the industry and potential swimming pool owners? (3) If so, what is the minister’s response to those claims? Will he now consider repealing those regulations? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I have received a large body of representations expressing concern or opposition to the regulations to which the member has referred. Sections of the industry have a reasonable complaint about the Government’s determination to proceed with this regulation. Their complaint is that the regulations were drafted without consultation; however, that is not strictly true. Consultation was conducted although the industry could legitimately argue that it was not a process of consultation in which it felt it could affect the outcome. Hon Simon O’Brien: That is not a valid consultation process. Hon TOM STEPHENS: We consulted about the manner and form of the regulation but the Government had given a pre-election commitment - Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
(2) Is the substance of their submissions that the new regulations will impose a burden of millions of dollars upon the industry and potential swimming pool owners? (3) If so, what is the minister’s response to those claims? Will he now consider repealing those regulations? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I have received a large body of representations expressing concern or opposition to the regulations to which the member has referred. Sections of the industry have a reasonable complaint about the Government’s determination to proceed with this regulation. Their complaint is that the regulations were drafted without consultation; however, that is not strictly true. Consultation was conducted although the industry could legitimately argue that it was not a process of consultation in which it felt it could affect the outcome. Hon Simon O’Brien: That is not a valid consultation process. Hon TOM STEPHENS: We consulted about the manner and form of the regulation but the Government had given a pre-election commitment - Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
(3) If so, what is the minister’s response to those claims? Will he now consider repealing those regulations? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I have received a large body of representations expressing concern or opposition to the regulations to which the member has referred. Sections of the industry have a reasonable complaint about the Government’s determination to proceed with this regulation. Their complaint is that the regulations were drafted without consultation; however, that is not strictly true. Consultation was conducted although the industry could legitimately argue that it was not a process of consultation in which it felt it could affect the outcome. Hon Simon O’Brien: That is not a valid consultation process. Hon TOM STEPHENS: We consulted about the manner and form of the regulation but the Government had given a pre-election commitment - Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I have received a large body of representations expressing concern or opposition to the regulations to which the member has referred. Sections of the industry have a reasonable complaint about the Government’s determination to proceed with this regulation. Their complaint is that the regulations were drafted without consultation; however, that is not strictly true. Consultation was conducted although the industry could legitimately argue that it was not a process of consultation in which it felt it could affect the outcome. Hon Simon O’Brien: That is not a valid consultation process. Hon TOM STEPHENS: We consulted about the manner and form of the regulation but the Government had given a pre-election commitment - Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
(1)-(3) I have received a large body of representations expressing concern or opposition to the regulations to which the member has referred. Sections of the industry have a reasonable complaint about the Government’s determination to proceed with this regulation. Their complaint is that the regulations were drafted without consultation; however, that is not strictly true. Consultation was conducted although the industry could legitimately argue that it was not a process of consultation in which it felt it could affect the outcome. Hon Simon O’Brien: That is not a valid consultation process. Hon TOM STEPHENS: We consulted about the manner and form of the regulation but the Government had given a pre-election commitment - Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon Simon O’Brien: That is not a valid consultation process. Hon TOM STEPHENS: We consulted about the manner and form of the regulation but the Government had given a pre-election commitment - Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon TOM STEPHENS: We consulted about the manner and form of the regulation but the Government had given a pre-election commitment - Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
(1) Has the minister received representations from housing and swimming pool industry representatives complaining about the introduction of the regulations without consultation? (2) Is the substance of their submissions that the new regulations will impose a burden of millions of dollars upon the industry and potential swimming pool owners? (3) If so, what is the minister’s response to those claims? Will he now consider repealing those regulations? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I have received a large body of representations expressing concern or opposition to the regulations to which the member has referred. Sections of the industry have a reasonable complaint about the Government’s determination to proceed with this regulation. Their complaint is that the regulations were drafted without consultation; however, that is not strictly true. Consultation was conducted although the industry could legitimately argue that it was not a process of consultation in which it felt it could affect the outcome. Hon Simon O’Brien: That is not a valid consultation process. Hon TOM STEPHENS: We consulted about the manner and form of the regulation but the Government had given a pre-election commitment - Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
(2) Is the substance of their submissions that the new regulations will impose a burden of millions of dollars upon the industry and potential swimming pool owners? (3) If so, what is the minister’s response to those claims? Will he now consider repealing those regulations? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I have received a large body of representations expressing concern or opposition to the regulations to which the member has referred. Sections of the industry have a reasonable complaint about the Government’s determination to proceed with this regulation. Their complaint is that the regulations were drafted without consultation; however, that is not strictly true. Consultation was conducted although the industry could legitimately argue that it was not a process of consultation in which it felt it could affect the outcome. Hon Simon O’Brien: That is not a valid consultation process. Hon TOM STEPHENS: We consulted about the manner and form of the regulation but the Government had given a pre-election commitment - Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
(3) If so, what is the minister’s response to those claims? Will he now consider repealing those regulations? Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I have received a large body of representations expressing concern or opposition to the regulations to which the member has referred. Sections of the industry have a reasonable complaint about the Government’s determination to proceed with this regulation. Their complaint is that the regulations were drafted without consultation; however, that is not strictly true. Consultation was conducted although the industry could legitimately argue that it was not a process of consultation in which it felt it could affect the outcome. Hon Simon O’Brien: That is not a valid consultation process. Hon TOM STEPHENS: We consulted about the manner and form of the regulation but the Government had given a pre-election commitment - Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon TOM STEPHENS replied: (1)-(3) I have received a large body of representations expressing concern or opposition to the regulations to which the member has referred. Sections of the industry have a reasonable complaint about the Government’s determination to proceed with this regulation. Their complaint is that the regulations were drafted without consultation; however, that is not strictly true. Consultation was conducted although the industry could legitimately argue that it was not a process of consultation in which it felt it could affect the outcome. Hon Simon O’Brien: That is not a valid consultation process. Hon TOM STEPHENS: We consulted about the manner and form of the regulation but the Government had given a pre-election commitment - Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
(1)-(3) I have received a large body of representations expressing concern or opposition to the regulations to which the member has referred. Sections of the industry have a reasonable complaint about the Government’s determination to proceed with this regulation. Their complaint is that the regulations were drafted without consultation; however, that is not strictly true. Consultation was conducted although the industry could legitimately argue that it was not a process of consultation in which it felt it could affect the outcome. Hon Simon O’Brien: That is not a valid consultation process. Hon TOM STEPHENS: We consulted about the manner and form of the regulation but the Government had given a pre-election commitment - Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon Simon O’Brien: That is not a valid consultation process. Hon TOM STEPHENS: We consulted about the manner and form of the regulation but the Government had given a pre-election commitment - Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon TOM STEPHENS: We consulted about the manner and form of the regulation but the Government had given a pre-election commitment - Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon TOM STEPHENS: Pardon? Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon Derrick Tomlinson: It won’t hurt, did it? Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon TOM STEPHENS: We told the industry representatives that we were persevering with the pre-election commitment that was given. I told them plainly that there was no legitimate complaint about the Government delivering upon a pre-election commitment. Members of the industry feel aggrieved that despite the strong opposition they expressed during the brief conversations I had with them in the lead up to the introduction of these regulations, they felt that those consultations were inadequate. If I were in their position I would consider that to be a reasonable complaint. However, the community was consulted. To this extent, the Labor Party made a public commitment in the lead up to the state election that received some publicity. The pre-election commitment was clear. The substance of the complaint is not only about the issue of the consultation process but also that a large amount of money is required to be spent in future on isolation fencing - Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon Simon O’Brien: Without necessarily protecting the wellbeing of any child. Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon TOM STEPHENS: That is the industry’s view that an isolation fence may not reduce the number of toddlers that drown in a pool one iota. It is also of the view that a barrier arrangement may be sufficient to dramatically impact or may have the same impact on reducing fatalities as other strategies of parental and community awareness and the like. Would I give consideration to repealing the regulations? Governments are obliged to consider all issues at all times on the basis of any new information available to it. I will endeavour to study any data that is made available. I have listened to the safety groups and they have presented a strong argument. I believe that more work could be done on this issue, and perhaps members of this House are prepared to do some of that work with the Government to determine whether a solid argument exists to look at this issue again. Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon Peter Foss: That was not a very good likeness of you in today’s The West Australian . The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
The PRESIDENT: Order! There is no scope for supplementary questions, nor is there scope for the minister to answer them. Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
Hon TOM STEPHENS: With reference to isolation fencing and the cartoon that appeared in today’s The West Australian , my children are of the view that Alston did not accurately capture the size of my waist!
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.