❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding Barry Carbon's involvement with KCGM and the EPA's handling of the KCGM proposal. The questions probe potential conflicts of interest and the Minister's decision to remit the matter back to the EPA.
AnsweredQoN 5612Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Did Mr Barry Carbon state on WIN News on the 30 October 2007 that he had ‘no link whatsoever with the KCGM proposal at hand’?
(2) If no to (1), what specifically did Mr Barry Carbon state to WIN News on 30 October 2007?
(3) Can the Minister state in what year and how much Mr Barry Carbon was paid by KCGM to advise ‘on issues with tectonic shifts’?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain why he stepped in to remit the bulletins for the KCGM proposal back to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why he was of the view that Mr Barry Carbon did not have a conflict of interest in the KCGM proposal?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why he was of the view that Mr Barry Carbon did have a perceived conflict of interest in the KCGM proposal?
(10) In remitting the bulletins back to the EPA, will the Minister ensure that all of the points and issues raised by Mr Bartle in a letter dated 4 November 2007 and Mr Duke in a letter dated 7 November 2007 are clearly addressed by the EPA to ensure that the proponent is made to address all the points raised in their original submissions in writing through its ‘response to public submissions’ and that the EPA makes comment on these issues in the new bulletins when they are released?
(11) If no to (10), why not?
(2) If no to (1), what specifically did Mr Barry Carbon state to WIN News on 30 October 2007?
(3) Can the Minister state in what year and how much Mr Barry Carbon was paid by KCGM to advise ‘on issues with tectonic shifts’?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain why he stepped in to remit the bulletins for the KCGM proposal back to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why he was of the view that Mr Barry Carbon did not have a conflict of interest in the KCGM proposal?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why he was of the view that Mr Barry Carbon did have a perceived conflict of interest in the KCGM proposal?
(10) In remitting the bulletins back to the EPA, will the Minister ensure that all of the points and issues raised by Mr Bartle in a letter dated 4 November 2007 and Mr Duke in a letter dated 7 November 2007 are clearly addressed by the EPA to ensure that the proponent is made to address all the points raised in their original submissions in writing through its ‘response to public submissions’ and that the EPA makes comment on these issues in the new bulletins when they are released?
(11) If no to (10), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
4 December 2007
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for the Environment
Response time
20 days
(1) - (2) The report of WIN News from 30 October 2007 paraphrases Mr Carbon rather than directly quotes him, therefore it is not known exactly what Mr Carbon said.
(3) Mr Carbon has stated that he worked as a consultant to KCGM in 1998 and received approximately $10,000.
(4) Not applicable.
(5) It is crucial that the environmental approvals process is open and accountable and that the public has confidence in this process. The fact Mr Carbon did some work for KCGM some ten years ago and that the entire Board of the EPA may not have been aware of this work meant this confidence was compromised due to a perceived conflict of interest. Because of this, the Minister decided to remit this matter to the EPA to be reconsidered under the new Chairman, Dr Paul Vogel.
(6) Not applicable.
(7) - (9) Under the Environmental Protection Act, EPA members are required to disclose their financial interests, and to excuse themselves from considerations, discussions and voting on a matter if it constitutes a conflict of interest as a result of that financial interest. The Act also requires this to be recorded in the meeting minutes, which are publicly available. Mr Barry Carbon wrote to the State Government declaring his current financial interests and any potential conflicts that may arise from them during his time as interim chair of the EPA. While Mr Carbon's work ten years ago for KCGM did not constitute a current pecuniary interest, it did raise questions in the minds of the public about the integrity of the EPA process. It is for this reason the Minister remitted the matter to the EPA to be reconsidered under the new Chairman, Dr Paul Vogel.
(10) The EPA is an independent body and will determine which matters it considers should be addressed in its report and final recommendations.
(11) 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
(3) Mr Carbon has stated that he worked as a consultant to KCGM in 1998 and received approximately $10,000.
(4) Not applicable.
(5) It is crucial that the environmental approvals process is open and accountable and that the public has confidence in this process. The fact Mr Carbon did some work for KCGM some ten years ago and that the entire Board of the EPA may not have been aware of this work meant this confidence was compromised due to a perceived conflict of interest. Because of this, the Minister decided to remit this matter to the EPA to be reconsidered under the new Chairman, Dr Paul Vogel.
(6) Not applicable.
(7) - (9) Under the Environmental Protection Act, EPA members are required to disclose their financial interests, and to excuse themselves from considerations, discussions and voting on a matter if it constitutes a conflict of interest as a result of that financial interest. The Act also requires this to be recorded in the meeting minutes, which are publicly available. Mr Barry Carbon wrote to the State Government declaring his current financial interests and any potential conflicts that may arise from them during his time as interim chair of the EPA. While Mr Carbon's work ten years ago for KCGM did not constitute a current pecuniary interest, it did raise questions in the minds of the public about the integrity of the EPA process. It is for this reason the Minister remitted the matter to the EPA to be reconsidered under the new Chairman, Dr Paul Vogel.
(10) The EPA is an independent body and will determine which matters it considers should be addressed in its report and final recommendations.
(11) 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.