❓ A WA parliamentary question investigates the handling of a Worksafe investigation into mould issues at the Pilbara Institute, specifically questioning the transfer of officers and completeness of evidence gathering. The Minister's answer clarifies the reason for the transfer and defends the investigation's closure.
AnsweredQoN 7889Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
With reference to the completed Worksafe investigation of mould related issues at the Pilbara Institute, can the Minister advise:
(a) was the investigation taken from one Worksafe officer and transferred to another officer at the end of 2011 and, if so, for what reason;
(b) did the new officer who took over the investigation complete the investigation by obtaining evidence from all the relevant staff at the Pilbara Institute; and
(i) if not, why not; and
(ii) has the investigation now closed and, if so, why was it closed without receiving evidence from all the relevant staff of the Pilbara Institute?
(a) was the investigation taken from one Worksafe officer and transferred to another officer at the end of 2011 and, if so, for what reason;
(b) did the new officer who took over the investigation complete the investigation by obtaining evidence from all the relevant staff at the Pilbara Institute; and
(i) if not, why not; and
(ii) has the investigation now closed and, if so, why was it closed without receiving evidence from all the relevant staff of the Pilbara Institute?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
12 June 2012
Responded by
Minister representing the Minister for Commerce
Response time
41 days
(a) In February 2012, the investigation was transferred to the Health Hazards Directorate where officers have greater technical knowledge in relation to mould. In addition, a Health Hazards Inspector had been involved during the course of the investigation.
(b) No.
(i) The investigation had already obtained sufficient information and the officer who finalised the investigation for closure had been involved throughout the course of the investigation.
(ii) Yes. Evidence was received from all staff deemed relevantly necessary at the time by the inspector, for the purposes of the investigation.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
(b) No.
(i) The investigation had already obtained sufficient information and the officer who finalised the investigation for closure had been involved throughout the course of the investigation.
(ii) Yes. Evidence was received from all staff deemed relevantly necessary at the time by the inspector, for the purposes of the investigation.
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
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.