❓ Mr. Love questions the government's decision to seemingly absolve Nicheliving directors from financial penalties in a deal. The Premier defends the government's intervention, highlighting the speed and effectiveness in providing relief to affected customers.
AnsweredQoN 790Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
NICHELIVING — ADMINISTRATION
790. Mr R.S. LOVE to the Premier:
Why
did the government's deal with Nicheliving let those company directors
off the hook with no financial penalty?
790. Mr R.S. LOVE to the Premier:
Why
did the government's deal with Nicheliving let those company directors
off the hook with no financial penalty?
AnswerView source ↗
Madam Speaker, I draw your attention
to the fact that that was not a supplementary question at all. The member has
now gone back off on some other pathway of inquiry because, quite simply, we
managed to answer his original questions. We have, in large part, done what we
said we would do, which was to give those customers relief as soon as possible.
By intervening when we did, we sped up that process. That seems to be what the
member opposite has trouble with—the idea that the government would
intervene and take a leadership role and make sure that those customers got a roof
over their heads as soon as possible. If the member differs with that, he
should make his position clear. However,
what we can gather from his questioning is that he does not believe the
government should have intervened when we did—that he believes
the situation should have been allowed to just pedal out, roll out, over a period,
with the only beneficiaries being lawyers for both sides. I am very proud that
we took proactive, deliberate steps to bring relief to those customers and make
sure they got a roof over their heads as soon as possible and, certainly, much
quicker than they would have were the opposition in government.
to the fact that that was not a supplementary question at all. The member has
now gone back off on some other pathway of inquiry because, quite simply, we
managed to answer his original questions. We have, in large part, done what we
said we would do, which was to give those customers relief as soon as possible.
By intervening when we did, we sped up that process. That seems to be what the
member opposite has trouble with—the idea that the government would
intervene and take a leadership role and make sure that those customers got a roof
over their heads as soon as possible. If the member differs with that, he
should make his position clear. However,
what we can gather from his questioning is that he does not believe the
government should have intervened when we did—that he believes
the situation should have been allowed to just pedal out, roll out, over a period,
with the only beneficiaries being lawyers for both sides. I am very proud that
we took proactive, deliberate steps to bring relief to those customers and make
sure they got a roof over their heads as soon as possible and, certainly, much
quicker than they would have were the opposition in government.
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.