Opposition questions the Minister regarding a potential breach of Cabinet confidentiality related to the State agreement with Fortescue Metals Group (FMG), citing a media report about deferred deliberations and a trading halt. The Minister denies any knowledge of a breach.

AnsweredQoN 2072Legislative Council
Asked
26 May 2005
Portfolio
State Development

QuestionView source ↗

I refer the Minister to his answer to question without notice No. 217, which indicated that the Minister was not aware of any breach of Cabinet confidentiality concerning Cabinet deliberations on the State agreement with Fortescue Metals Group, and ask -
(1) Is the Minister aware that
The West Australian
reported on Tuesday, November 9 2004, that Cabinet deliberations over the State agreement were deferred?
(2) Is the Minister aware that the same report stated that Fortescue Metals Group remained in trading halt during Monday, November 8, ahead of an expected announcement from the Government?
(3) As the Minister has now been made aware that information concerning Cabinet’s agenda, had found its way into the public arena, and the Minister has stated previously that the Government did not inform anyone of the Cabinet deliberations on the State agreement, does the Minister have any concerns now over the breach of Cabinet confidentiality?
(4) If so, will the Minister do anything to establish how Cabinet confidentiality was breached over such a commercially sensitive matter to minimise the risk of a recurrence in the future?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
28 June 2005
Responded by
Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
33 days
Answer 1. Yes 2. FMG has informed me as follows: "FMG called a trading halt on Friday 5 November 2004. When a Company calls a trading halt it must do so for a period of 48 working hours. The reason the trading halt was called was because there was a signing ceremony in China on Friday 5 November and formal invitations had been sent out to those involved. FMG was aware of the potential for information relating to this important signing ceremony to leak. The decision was taken that the risk was too high, particularly as other Australian companies were also involved, that the information was relevant to the market but had not been released and so a trading halt was called. Contracts were duly signed with MCC (China Metallurgical) and CHEC (China Harbour) on the Friday and the information was released to the ASX. However the trading halt remained in place because a number of Memorandums of Understanding (MoU's) were due to be signed over the week-end involving BGC, Thyssen Krupp and Barclay Mowlem. FMG made a further announcement to the ASX concerning these MoU's on Monday 8 November and then informed the ASX that the trading halt was no longer required. Trading in FMG's shares was resumed on Tuesday 9 November, 2004 as normal. The article referred to suggested that the trading halt remained in place due to the imminent announcement of the State Agreement. That was not the reason for the trading halt initially nor the reason why it remained in place over the week-end." 3.As advised in my response to Question without Notice 125, I am unaware of a breach of Cabinet confidentiality. 4. N/A

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more