❓ A WA parliamentary question probes delays in the Department of Industry and Resources' (DoIR) investigation into a resident's complaint against KCGM under the Mining Act 1978, alleging preferential treatment. The Minister refutes the allegations, citing workload, legal advice complexity, and the need for due process.
AnsweredQoN 2618Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to Question on Notice No. 2542, of August 25 2005, and a letter of complaint dated January 5, 2005, requesting urgent regulatory enforcement action from the Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR) in relation to section 20(5) of the
Mining Act 1978 -
(1) Can the Minister state which specific officers, their position within the DoIR who in the following weeks held discussions with relevant KCGM personnel in order to clarify matters relating to the residents complaint?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister state at what specific location and the duration of these discussions with relevant KCGM personnel took place?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain why it took from the June 21 2005 till the August 15 2005, for DoIR to consider the legal advice before the Department wrote to KCGM on the August 15 2005 to request its formal response to the allegations made by the resident against the company?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why did DoIR not write to KCGM earlier than the August 15 2005 to obtain its formal response to the allegations made by the resident against the company?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why DoIR has conveniently and cleverly delayed the finalisation of this investigation to accommodate KCGM over the entire period of time breaching section 20(5) of the
Mining Act 1978
?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Will the Minister quote the specific text of the letter dated August 15 2005 written to KCGM?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
Mining Act 1978 -
(1) Can the Minister state which specific officers, their position within the DoIR who in the following weeks held discussions with relevant KCGM personnel in order to clarify matters relating to the residents complaint?
(2) If no to (1), why not?
(3) Can the Minister state at what specific location and the duration of these discussions with relevant KCGM personnel took place?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain why it took from the June 21 2005 till the August 15 2005, for DoIR to consider the legal advice before the Department wrote to KCGM on the August 15 2005 to request its formal response to the allegations made by the resident against the company?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(7) Can the Minister explain why did DoIR not write to KCGM earlier than the August 15 2005 to obtain its formal response to the allegations made by the resident against the company?
(8) If no to (7), why not?
(9) Can the Minister explain why DoIR has conveniently and cleverly delayed the finalisation of this investigation to accommodate KCGM over the entire period of time breaching section 20(5) of the
Mining Act 1978
?
(10) If no to (9), why not?
(11) Will the Minister quote the specific text of the letter dated August 15 2005 written to KCGM?
(12) If no to (11), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
9 November 2005
Responded by
Leader of the House representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
48 days
(3) I am informed that these discussions consisted of a number of telephone conversations, each of some 20 minutes duration, between DoIR's Head Office staff in Perth and KCGM personnel. (4) N/A. (5) I am informed that, given the demands imposed by DoIR's normal daily workloads involving numerous issues and the length and complexity of the legal advice received from the State Solicitor's Office (SSO) concerning the resident's complaints, DoIR required some weeks to properly consider that advice and its ramifications, and to decide on an appropriate course of action to follow in this matter. (6) N/A. (7) It was necessary for DoIR to fully consider the SSO's advice prior to writing to KCGM to request its response to the resident's allegations. (8) N/A. (9) I rebut the Hon Member's assertion that DoIR has "conveniently and cleverly delayed" its investigation into these matters in order to accommodate KCGM, particularly in view of the paramount need for DoIR to ensure that its investigation is conducted in a proper manner and in compliance with the rules of natural justice. (10) N/A. (11)&(12) As indicated in Answer 2) above, carriage of this matter properly rests with DoIR. It has been DoIR's long established practice to treat correspondence exchanged between it and its clients as being confidential and accessible by other parties only via the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992.
(4) N/A. (5) I am informed that, given the demands imposed by DoIR's normal daily workloads involving numerous issues and the length and complexity of the legal advice received from the State Solicitor's Office (SSO) concerning the resident's complaints, DoIR required some weeks to properly consider that advice and its ramifications, and to decide on an appropriate course of action to follow in this matter. (6) N/A. (7) It was necessary for DoIR to fully consider the SSO's advice prior to writing to KCGM to request its response to the resident's allegations. (8) N/A. (9) I rebut the Hon Member's assertion that DoIR has "conveniently and cleverly delayed" its investigation into these matters in order to accommodate KCGM, particularly in view of the paramount need for DoIR to ensure that its investigation is conducted in a proper manner and in compliance with the rules of natural justice. (10) N/A. (11)&(12) As indicated in Answer 2) above, carriage of this matter properly rests with DoIR. It has been DoIR's long established practice to treat correspondence exchanged between it and its clients as being confidential and accessible by other parties only via the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992.
(5) I am informed that, given the demands imposed by DoIR's normal daily workloads involving numerous issues and the length and complexity of the legal advice received from the State Solicitor's Office (SSO) concerning the resident's complaints, DoIR required some weeks to properly consider that advice and its ramifications, and to decide on an appropriate course of action to follow in this matter. (6) N/A. (7) It was necessary for DoIR to fully consider the SSO's advice prior to writing to KCGM to request its response to the resident's allegations. (8) N/A. (9) I rebut the Hon Member's assertion that DoIR has "conveniently and cleverly delayed" its investigation into these matters in order to accommodate KCGM, particularly in view of the paramount need for DoIR to ensure that its investigation is conducted in a proper manner and in compliance with the rules of natural justice. (10) N/A. (11)&(12) As indicated in Answer 2) above, carriage of this matter properly rests with DoIR. It has been DoIR's long established practice to treat correspondence exchanged between it and its clients as being confidential and accessible by other parties only via the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992.
(6) N/A. (7) It was necessary for DoIR to fully consider the SSO's advice prior to writing to KCGM to request its response to the resident's allegations. (8) N/A. (9) I rebut the Hon Member's assertion that DoIR has "conveniently and cleverly delayed" its investigation into these matters in order to accommodate KCGM, particularly in view of the paramount need for DoIR to ensure that its investigation is conducted in a proper manner and in compliance with the rules of natural justice. (10) N/A. (11)&(12) As indicated in Answer 2) above, carriage of this matter properly rests with DoIR. It has been DoIR's long established practice to treat correspondence exchanged between it and its clients as being confidential and accessible by other parties only via the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992.
(7) It was necessary for DoIR to fully consider the SSO's advice prior to writing to KCGM to request its response to the resident's allegations. (8) N/A. (9) I rebut the Hon Member's assertion that DoIR has "conveniently and cleverly delayed" its investigation into these matters in order to accommodate KCGM, particularly in view of the paramount need for DoIR to ensure that its investigation is conducted in a proper manner and in compliance with the rules of natural justice. (10) N/A. (11)&(12) As indicated in Answer 2) above, carriage of this matter properly rests with DoIR. It has been DoIR's long established practice to treat correspondence exchanged between it and its clients as being confidential and accessible by other parties only via the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992.
(8) N/A. (9) I rebut the Hon Member's assertion that DoIR has "conveniently and cleverly delayed" its investigation into these matters in order to accommodate KCGM, particularly in view of the paramount need for DoIR to ensure that its investigation is conducted in a proper manner and in compliance with the rules of natural justice. (10) N/A. (11)&(12) As indicated in Answer 2) above, carriage of this matter properly rests with DoIR. It has been DoIR's long established practice to treat correspondence exchanged between it and its clients as being confidential and accessible by other parties only via the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992.
(9) I rebut the Hon Member's assertion that DoIR has "conveniently and cleverly delayed" its investigation into these matters in order to accommodate KCGM, particularly in view of the paramount need for DoIR to ensure that its investigation is conducted in a proper manner and in compliance with the rules of natural justice. (10) N/A. (11)&(12) As indicated in Answer 2) above, carriage of this matter properly rests with DoIR. It has been DoIR's long established practice to treat correspondence exchanged between it and its clients as being confidential and accessible by other parties only via the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992.
(10) N/A. (11)&(12) As indicated in Answer 2) above, carriage of this matter properly rests with DoIR. It has been DoIR's long established practice to treat correspondence exchanged between it and its clients as being confidential and accessible by other parties only via the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992.
(11)&(12) As indicated in Answer 2) above, carriage of this matter properly rests with DoIR. It has been DoIR's long established practice to treat correspondence exchanged between it and its clients as being confidential and accessible by other parties only via the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992.
(4) N/A. (5) I am informed that, given the demands imposed by DoIR's normal daily workloads involving numerous issues and the length and complexity of the legal advice received from the State Solicitor's Office (SSO) concerning the resident's complaints, DoIR required some weeks to properly consider that advice and its ramifications, and to decide on an appropriate course of action to follow in this matter. (6) N/A. (7) It was necessary for DoIR to fully consider the SSO's advice prior to writing to KCGM to request its response to the resident's allegations. (8) N/A. (9) I rebut the Hon Member's assertion that DoIR has "conveniently and cleverly delayed" its investigation into these matters in order to accommodate KCGM, particularly in view of the paramount need for DoIR to ensure that its investigation is conducted in a proper manner and in compliance with the rules of natural justice. (10) N/A. (11)&(12) As indicated in Answer 2) above, carriage of this matter properly rests with DoIR. It has been DoIR's long established practice to treat correspondence exchanged between it and its clients as being confidential and accessible by other parties only via the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992.
(5) I am informed that, given the demands imposed by DoIR's normal daily workloads involving numerous issues and the length and complexity of the legal advice received from the State Solicitor's Office (SSO) concerning the resident's complaints, DoIR required some weeks to properly consider that advice and its ramifications, and to decide on an appropriate course of action to follow in this matter. (6) N/A. (7) It was necessary for DoIR to fully consider the SSO's advice prior to writing to KCGM to request its response to the resident's allegations. (8) N/A. (9) I rebut the Hon Member's assertion that DoIR has "conveniently and cleverly delayed" its investigation into these matters in order to accommodate KCGM, particularly in view of the paramount need for DoIR to ensure that its investigation is conducted in a proper manner and in compliance with the rules of natural justice. (10) N/A. (11)&(12) As indicated in Answer 2) above, carriage of this matter properly rests with DoIR. It has been DoIR's long established practice to treat correspondence exchanged between it and its clients as being confidential and accessible by other parties only via the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992.
(6) N/A. (7) It was necessary for DoIR to fully consider the SSO's advice prior to writing to KCGM to request its response to the resident's allegations. (8) N/A. (9) I rebut the Hon Member's assertion that DoIR has "conveniently and cleverly delayed" its investigation into these matters in order to accommodate KCGM, particularly in view of the paramount need for DoIR to ensure that its investigation is conducted in a proper manner and in compliance with the rules of natural justice. (10) N/A. (11)&(12) As indicated in Answer 2) above, carriage of this matter properly rests with DoIR. It has been DoIR's long established practice to treat correspondence exchanged between it and its clients as being confidential and accessible by other parties only via the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992.
(7) It was necessary for DoIR to fully consider the SSO's advice prior to writing to KCGM to request its response to the resident's allegations. (8) N/A. (9) I rebut the Hon Member's assertion that DoIR has "conveniently and cleverly delayed" its investigation into these matters in order to accommodate KCGM, particularly in view of the paramount need for DoIR to ensure that its investigation is conducted in a proper manner and in compliance with the rules of natural justice. (10) N/A. (11)&(12) As indicated in Answer 2) above, carriage of this matter properly rests with DoIR. It has been DoIR's long established practice to treat correspondence exchanged between it and its clients as being confidential and accessible by other parties only via the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992.
(8) N/A. (9) I rebut the Hon Member's assertion that DoIR has "conveniently and cleverly delayed" its investigation into these matters in order to accommodate KCGM, particularly in view of the paramount need for DoIR to ensure that its investigation is conducted in a proper manner and in compliance with the rules of natural justice. (10) N/A. (11)&(12) As indicated in Answer 2) above, carriage of this matter properly rests with DoIR. It has been DoIR's long established practice to treat correspondence exchanged between it and its clients as being confidential and accessible by other parties only via the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992.
(9) I rebut the Hon Member's assertion that DoIR has "conveniently and cleverly delayed" its investigation into these matters in order to accommodate KCGM, particularly in view of the paramount need for DoIR to ensure that its investigation is conducted in a proper manner and in compliance with the rules of natural justice. (10) N/A. (11)&(12) As indicated in Answer 2) above, carriage of this matter properly rests with DoIR. It has been DoIR's long established practice to treat correspondence exchanged between it and its clients as being confidential and accessible by other parties only via the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992.
(10) N/A. (11)&(12) As indicated in Answer 2) above, carriage of this matter properly rests with DoIR. It has been DoIR's long established practice to treat correspondence exchanged between it and its clients as being confidential and accessible by other parties only via the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992.
(11)&(12) As indicated in Answer 2) above, carriage of this matter properly rests with DoIR. It has been DoIR's long established practice to treat correspondence exchanged between it and its clients as being confidential and accessible by other parties only via the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 1992.
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.