❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the Department of Mines and Petroleum's release of documents to a lawyer, Carmel McKenzie, and associated fees. The questions probe the rationale behind the document release, potential fee refunds, staff statements, and the extent of Ms. McKenzie's access to departmental files.
AnsweredQoN 3839Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to question on notice No. 3248 asked on 2 December 2010, and ask -
(1) Can the Minister explain the rationale in the context of what relevance does of the, ‘information was being provided to a statutory supervisory body’, have in terms of all the information that was released free of charge to the lawyer concerned?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Will the Department of Mines and Petroleum for any Wardens Court matter, not necessarily all the matters raised in question on notice No. 3248 referred to above in the last five years, refund large fees charged to any person including practitioners in obtaining transcripts on the basis that they were the legal representative of one of the parties to the proceedings when they were charged by the Department?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) If yes to (3), when will this occur?
(6) At any time did the Regional Mining Registrar or any other staff member sign a statement or several statements and provide that to the lawyer concerned?
(7) If yes to (6), will the Minister quote the full text of those documents?
(8) At any time did the lawyer email or send by post to the Regional Mining Registrar or any other staff member a copy of a draft statement seeking that it be signed?
(9) If yes to (8), will the Minister quote the full text of that email and the draft statement?
(10) Does the Minister stand by the answer that Ms McKenzie did not have access to the files?
(11) If no to (10), why has this changed?
(12) Can the Minister explain what Ms McKenzie precisely did for the three hours when she visited the Regional Mining Registrar?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
(14) Can the Minister explain the rationale as to how the documents that were tabled as part of tabled paper No. 2943 were specifically identified and then released to Ms McKenzie?
(15) If no to (14), why not?
(16) Can the Minister explain why only the documents for tabled paper 2943 were released to Ms McKenzie and not all the documents which exist on the departmental files?
(17) If no to (16), why not?
(1) Can the Minister explain the rationale in the context of what relevance does of the, ‘information was being provided to a statutory supervisory body’, have in terms of all the information that was released free of charge to the lawyer concerned?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Will the Department of Mines and Petroleum for any Wardens Court matter, not necessarily all the matters raised in question on notice No. 3248 referred to above in the last five years, refund large fees charged to any person including practitioners in obtaining transcripts on the basis that they were the legal representative of one of the parties to the proceedings when they were charged by the Department?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) If yes to (3), when will this occur?
(6) At any time did the Regional Mining Registrar or any other staff member sign a statement or several statements and provide that to the lawyer concerned?
(7) If yes to (6), will the Minister quote the full text of those documents?
(8) At any time did the lawyer email or send by post to the Regional Mining Registrar or any other staff member a copy of a draft statement seeking that it be signed?
(9) If yes to (8), will the Minister quote the full text of that email and the draft statement?
(10) Does the Minister stand by the answer that Ms McKenzie did not have access to the files?
(11) If no to (10), why has this changed?
(12) Can the Minister explain what Ms McKenzie precisely did for the three hours when she visited the Regional Mining Registrar?
(13) If no to (12), why not?
(14) Can the Minister explain the rationale as to how the documents that were tabled as part of tabled paper No. 2943 were specifically identified and then released to Ms McKenzie?
(15) If no to (14), why not?
(16) Can the Minister explain why only the documents for tabled paper 2943 were released to Ms McKenzie and not all the documents which exist on the departmental files?
(17) If no to (16), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
21 June 2011
Responded by
Minister for Mines and Petroleum
Response time
68 days
(1) The relevance of item (iv) in the preamble to the answer to Parliamentary Question 3248 is that, this was one of four factors which together justified the subject documents being provided to Mrs Carmel McKenzie without a subpoena or a freedom of information application and at no cost. The subject documents were sought by Mrs McKenzie for the specific purpose of assisting her in preparing a response to the Legal Professional Complaints Committee (the statutory supervisory body) which was investigating a complaint made against her.
(2) Not applicable
(3) No
(4) Special circumstances exist in this particular case, refer to answer (1) above, the four factors [(i), (ii), (iii) & (iv)] referred to in the Preamble to the answer to Parliamentary Question 3248 together justified the subject documents being provided without the usual requirement for a subpoena or a freedom of information application and payment of requisite fees.
(5) Not applicable
(6) Yes, a staff member prepared a statement and provided it to the lawyer concerned.
(7) See attached. [
tabled paper no.
]
(8) Yes. The lawyer emailed a draft statement to a staff member, seeking that it be signed. The draft statement made reference to the phrase "on numerous occasions" to which the staff member could not attest. The statement tabled in response to Question 7 was instead prepared and provided to the lawyer concerned.
(9) No. The original email and attached draft statement were not retained by the staff member.
(10) Yes
(11) Not applicable
(12) Ms McKenzie sat at a table whilst the Regional Mining Registrar searched through the files to locate and extract the documents given to her. The files have more than 1000 pages of documents.
(13) Not applicable
(14) The released documents were identified by the regional mining registrar as being those documents that recorded the progress of the relevant legal proceedings through the Warden's court.
(15) Not Applicable
(16) The files consist of documents relating to the Warden's Court proceedings for the tenements as well as documents pertinent to the administration of the mining tenure. Only documents in respect to the Warden's Court proceedings relevant to Ms McKenzie's request were supplied.
(17) Not applicable
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
(2) Not applicable
(3) No
(4) Special circumstances exist in this particular case, refer to answer (1) above, the four factors [(i), (ii), (iii) & (iv)] referred to in the Preamble to the answer to Parliamentary Question 3248 together justified the subject documents being provided without the usual requirement for a subpoena or a freedom of information application and payment of requisite fees.
(5) Not applicable
(6) Yes, a staff member prepared a statement and provided it to the lawyer concerned.
(7) See attached. [
tabled paper no.
]
(8) Yes. The lawyer emailed a draft statement to a staff member, seeking that it be signed. The draft statement made reference to the phrase "on numerous occasions" to which the staff member could not attest. The statement tabled in response to Question 7 was instead prepared and provided to the lawyer concerned.
(9) No. The original email and attached draft statement were not retained by the staff member.
(10) Yes
(11) Not applicable
(12) Ms McKenzie sat at a table whilst the Regional Mining Registrar searched through the files to locate and extract the documents given to her. The files have more than 1000 pages of documents.
(13) Not applicable
(14) The released documents were identified by the regional mining registrar as being those documents that recorded the progress of the relevant legal proceedings through the Warden's court.
(15) Not Applicable
(16) The files consist of documents relating to the Warden's Court proceedings for the tenements as well as documents pertinent to the administration of the mining tenure. Only documents in respect to the Warden's Court proceedings relevant to Ms McKenzie's request were supplied.
(17) Not applicable
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.