❓ Question regarding payments made to individuals in exchange for abandoning legal action against the government following the Boorabbin fire deaths. The Attorney General explains the process and acknowledges the unsatisfactory communication between departments and ministers.
AnsweredQoN 929Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
BOORABBIN FIRE DEATHS — PAYMENTS TO INDIVIDUALS
I first acknowledge in the public gallery the teachers, parents and students from Perth Waldorf School, which I understand is in the member for Jandakot’s electorate. My question is to the Attorney General. I refer to the recent coronial inquiry into the fires at Boorabbin National Park and the payments made to individuals on the basis that they would abandon their right to action against the government. Will the Attorney General provide the house with some further detail on how these agreements came to be reached? Mr C.C. PORTER
I first acknowledge in the public gallery the teachers, parents and students from Perth Waldorf School, which I understand is in the member for Jandakot’s electorate. My question is to the Attorney General. I refer to the recent coronial inquiry into the fires at Boorabbin National Park and the payments made to individuals on the basis that they would abandon their right to action against the government. Will the Attorney General provide the house with some further detail on how these agreements came to be reached? Mr C.C. PORTER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for his question. I can fully understand that members of the public would have serious concerns about the outcome of that matter in respect of those payments and the circumstances in which they were given. It is a matter that warrants some explanation. This explanation I will give as briefly as possible, but it is not without its complications. The Boorabbin incident occurred on 31 December 2007. In October 2008, two payments were made: one to Ms Bedford of $35 000 and one to Mr Taylor of $34 000. I will use the Bedford example, because it is illustrative of the process that was engaged in to reach those payments. A letter was received on 14 March 2008 from Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo, solicitors. That correspondence to the Insurance Commission of Western Australia indicated an action by the dependants of the late Mr Bedford. It indicated that the claim was to be made under the Fatal Accidents Act. Then in April, May and July of 2008 a range of correspondence passed between Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo and the State Solicitor’s Office. It needs to be noted that at that time the SSO was briefed to act for the state of Western Australia by RiskCover, who was the claims manager for the Department of Environment and Conservation. That, therefore, is the legal situation that was encountered. I might say at this time that the question is not whether Hon Donna Faragher knew about the fact of the action in the matter and the correspondence because, of course, she was not the minister at the time. I think the member for Mandurah was the relevant minister at the time. I have read some of the statements made by the member for Girrawheen and I understand the context in which they were made. Their tenor was that it would be extraordinary for a minister to not know about the claims or the nature of the eventual settlements. It may not be the best outcome, but it is certainly not extraordinary. The reason is that we would not necessarily expect the minister—whether it was Hon Donna Faragher or the member for Mandurah—to have been aware of the claim or indeed of the later settlement unless the department had told the minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Wasn’t that in itself an issue, Attorney? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise. Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
My question is to the Attorney General. I refer to the recent coronial inquiry into the fires at Boorabbin National Park and the payments made to individuals on the basis that they would abandon their right to action against the government. Will the Attorney General provide the house with some further detail on how these agreements came to be reached? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. I can fully understand that members of the public would have serious concerns about the outcome of that matter in respect of those payments and the circumstances in which they were given. It is a matter that warrants some explanation. This explanation I will give as briefly as possible, but it is not without its complications. The Boorabbin incident occurred on 31 December 2007. In October 2008, two payments were made: one to Ms Bedford of $35 000 and one to Mr Taylor of $34 000. I will use the Bedford example, because it is illustrative of the process that was engaged in to reach those payments. A letter was received on 14 March 2008 from Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo, solicitors. That correspondence to the Insurance Commission of Western Australia indicated an action by the dependants of the late Mr Bedford. It indicated that the claim was to be made under the Fatal Accidents Act. Then in April, May and July of 2008 a range of correspondence passed between Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo and the State Solicitor’s Office. It needs to be noted that at that time the SSO was briefed to act for the state of Western Australia by RiskCover, who was the claims manager for the Department of Environment and Conservation. That, therefore, is the legal situation that was encountered. I might say at this time that the question is not whether Hon Donna Faragher knew about the fact of the action in the matter and the correspondence because, of course, she was not the minister at the time. I think the member for Mandurah was the relevant minister at the time. I have read some of the statements made by the member for Girrawheen and I understand the context in which they were made. Their tenor was that it would be extraordinary for a minister to not know about the claims or the nature of the eventual settlements. It may not be the best outcome, but it is certainly not extraordinary. The reason is that we would not necessarily expect the minister—whether it was Hon Donna Faragher or the member for Mandurah—to have been aware of the claim or indeed of the later settlement unless the department had told the minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Wasn’t that in itself an issue, Attorney? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise. Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. I can fully understand that members of the public would have serious concerns about the outcome of that matter in respect of those payments and the circumstances in which they were given. It is a matter that warrants some explanation. This explanation I will give as briefly as possible, but it is not without its complications. The Boorabbin incident occurred on 31 December 2007. In October 2008, two payments were made: one to Ms Bedford of $35 000 and one to Mr Taylor of $34 000. I will use the Bedford example, because it is illustrative of the process that was engaged in to reach those payments. A letter was received on 14 March 2008 from Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo, solicitors. That correspondence to the Insurance Commission of Western Australia indicated an action by the dependants of the late Mr Bedford. It indicated that the claim was to be made under the Fatal Accidents Act. Then in April, May and July of 2008 a range of correspondence passed between Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo and the State Solicitor’s Office. It needs to be noted that at that time the SSO was briefed to act for the state of Western Australia by RiskCover, who was the claims manager for the Department of Environment and Conservation. That, therefore, is the legal situation that was encountered. I might say at this time that the question is not whether Hon Donna Faragher knew about the fact of the action in the matter and the correspondence because, of course, she was not the minister at the time. I think the member for Mandurah was the relevant minister at the time. I have read some of the statements made by the member for Girrawheen and I understand the context in which they were made. Their tenor was that it would be extraordinary for a minister to not know about the claims or the nature of the eventual settlements. It may not be the best outcome, but it is certainly not extraordinary. The reason is that we would not necessarily expect the minister—whether it was Hon Donna Faragher or the member for Mandurah—to have been aware of the claim or indeed of the later settlement unless the department had told the minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Wasn’t that in itself an issue, Attorney? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise. Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
I thank the member for his question. I can fully understand that members of the public would have serious concerns about the outcome of that matter in respect of those payments and the circumstances in which they were given. It is a matter that warrants some explanation. This explanation I will give as briefly as possible, but it is not without its complications. The Boorabbin incident occurred on 31 December 2007. In October 2008, two payments were made: one to Ms Bedford of $35 000 and one to Mr Taylor of $34 000. I will use the Bedford example, because it is illustrative of the process that was engaged in to reach those payments. A letter was received on 14 March 2008 from Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo, solicitors. That correspondence to the Insurance Commission of Western Australia indicated an action by the dependants of the late Mr Bedford. It indicated that the claim was to be made under the Fatal Accidents Act. Then in April, May and July of 2008 a range of correspondence passed between Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo and the State Solicitor’s Office. It needs to be noted that at that time the SSO was briefed to act for the state of Western Australia by RiskCover, who was the claims manager for the Department of Environment and Conservation. That, therefore, is the legal situation that was encountered. I might say at this time that the question is not whether Hon Donna Faragher knew about the fact of the action in the matter and the correspondence because, of course, she was not the minister at the time. I think the member for Mandurah was the relevant minister at the time. I have read some of the statements made by the member for Girrawheen and I understand the context in which they were made. Their tenor was that it would be extraordinary for a minister to not know about the claims or the nature of the eventual settlements. It may not be the best outcome, but it is certainly not extraordinary. The reason is that we would not necessarily expect the minister—whether it was Hon Donna Faragher or the member for Mandurah—to have been aware of the claim or indeed of the later settlement unless the department had told the minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Wasn’t that in itself an issue, Attorney? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise. Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
I can fully understand that members of the public would have serious concerns about the outcome of that matter in respect of those payments and the circumstances in which they were given. It is a matter that warrants some explanation. This explanation I will give as briefly as possible, but it is not without its complications. The Boorabbin incident occurred on 31 December 2007. In October 2008, two payments were made: one to Ms Bedford of $35 000 and one to Mr Taylor of $34 000. I will use the Bedford example, because it is illustrative of the process that was engaged in to reach those payments. A letter was received on 14 March 2008 from Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo, solicitors. That correspondence to the Insurance Commission of Western Australia indicated an action by the dependants of the late Mr Bedford. It indicated that the claim was to be made under the Fatal Accidents Act. Then in April, May and July of 2008 a range of correspondence passed between Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo and the State Solicitor’s Office. It needs to be noted that at that time the SSO was briefed to act for the state of Western Australia by RiskCover, who was the claims manager for the Department of Environment and Conservation. That, therefore, is the legal situation that was encountered. I might say at this time that the question is not whether Hon Donna Faragher knew about the fact of the action in the matter and the correspondence because, of course, she was not the minister at the time. I think the member for Mandurah was the relevant minister at the time. I have read some of the statements made by the member for Girrawheen and I understand the context in which they were made. Their tenor was that it would be extraordinary for a minister to not know about the claims or the nature of the eventual settlements. It may not be the best outcome, but it is certainly not extraordinary. The reason is that we would not necessarily expect the minister—whether it was Hon Donna Faragher or the member for Mandurah—to have been aware of the claim or indeed of the later settlement unless the department had told the minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Wasn’t that in itself an issue, Attorney? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise. Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
A letter was received on 14 March 2008 from Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo, solicitors. That correspondence to the Insurance Commission of Western Australia indicated an action by the dependants of the late Mr Bedford. It indicated that the claim was to be made under the Fatal Accidents Act. Then in April, May and July of 2008 a range of correspondence passed between Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo and the State Solicitor’s Office. It needs to be noted that at that time the SSO was briefed to act for the state of Western Australia by RiskCover, who was the claims manager for the Department of Environment and Conservation. That, therefore, is the legal situation that was encountered. I might say at this time that the question is not whether Hon Donna Faragher knew about the fact of the action in the matter and the correspondence because, of course, she was not the minister at the time. I think the member for Mandurah was the relevant minister at the time. I have read some of the statements made by the member for Girrawheen and I understand the context in which they were made. Their tenor was that it would be extraordinary for a minister to not know about the claims or the nature of the eventual settlements. It may not be the best outcome, but it is certainly not extraordinary. The reason is that we would not necessarily expect the minister—whether it was Hon Donna Faragher or the member for Mandurah—to have been aware of the claim or indeed of the later settlement unless the department had told the minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Wasn’t that in itself an issue, Attorney? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise. Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
I might say at this time that the question is not whether Hon Donna Faragher knew about the fact of the action in the matter and the correspondence because, of course, she was not the minister at the time. I think the member for Mandurah was the relevant minister at the time. I have read some of the statements made by the member for Girrawheen and I understand the context in which they were made. Their tenor was that it would be extraordinary for a minister to not know about the claims or the nature of the eventual settlements. It may not be the best outcome, but it is certainly not extraordinary. The reason is that we would not necessarily expect the minister—whether it was Hon Donna Faragher or the member for Mandurah—to have been aware of the claim or indeed of the later settlement unless the department had told the minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Wasn’t that in itself an issue, Attorney? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise. Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Ms M.M. Quirk : Wasn’t that in itself an issue, Attorney? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise. Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise. Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
My question is to the Attorney General. I refer to the recent coronial inquiry into the fires at Boorabbin National Park and the payments made to individuals on the basis that they would abandon their right to action against the government. Will the Attorney General provide the house with some further detail on how these agreements came to be reached? Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. I can fully understand that members of the public would have serious concerns about the outcome of that matter in respect of those payments and the circumstances in which they were given. It is a matter that warrants some explanation. This explanation I will give as briefly as possible, but it is not without its complications. The Boorabbin incident occurred on 31 December 2007. In October 2008, two payments were made: one to Ms Bedford of $35 000 and one to Mr Taylor of $34 000. I will use the Bedford example, because it is illustrative of the process that was engaged in to reach those payments. A letter was received on 14 March 2008 from Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo, solicitors. That correspondence to the Insurance Commission of Western Australia indicated an action by the dependants of the late Mr Bedford. It indicated that the claim was to be made under the Fatal Accidents Act. Then in April, May and July of 2008 a range of correspondence passed between Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo and the State Solicitor’s Office. It needs to be noted that at that time the SSO was briefed to act for the state of Western Australia by RiskCover, who was the claims manager for the Department of Environment and Conservation. That, therefore, is the legal situation that was encountered. I might say at this time that the question is not whether Hon Donna Faragher knew about the fact of the action in the matter and the correspondence because, of course, she was not the minister at the time. I think the member for Mandurah was the relevant minister at the time. I have read some of the statements made by the member for Girrawheen and I understand the context in which they were made. Their tenor was that it would be extraordinary for a minister to not know about the claims or the nature of the eventual settlements. It may not be the best outcome, but it is certainly not extraordinary. The reason is that we would not necessarily expect the minister—whether it was Hon Donna Faragher or the member for Mandurah—to have been aware of the claim or indeed of the later settlement unless the department had told the minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Wasn’t that in itself an issue, Attorney? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise. Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER replied: I thank the member for his question. I can fully understand that members of the public would have serious concerns about the outcome of that matter in respect of those payments and the circumstances in which they were given. It is a matter that warrants some explanation. This explanation I will give as briefly as possible, but it is not without its complications. The Boorabbin incident occurred on 31 December 2007. In October 2008, two payments were made: one to Ms Bedford of $35 000 and one to Mr Taylor of $34 000. I will use the Bedford example, because it is illustrative of the process that was engaged in to reach those payments. A letter was received on 14 March 2008 from Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo, solicitors. That correspondence to the Insurance Commission of Western Australia indicated an action by the dependants of the late Mr Bedford. It indicated that the claim was to be made under the Fatal Accidents Act. Then in April, May and July of 2008 a range of correspondence passed between Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo and the State Solicitor’s Office. It needs to be noted that at that time the SSO was briefed to act for the state of Western Australia by RiskCover, who was the claims manager for the Department of Environment and Conservation. That, therefore, is the legal situation that was encountered. I might say at this time that the question is not whether Hon Donna Faragher knew about the fact of the action in the matter and the correspondence because, of course, she was not the minister at the time. I think the member for Mandurah was the relevant minister at the time. I have read some of the statements made by the member for Girrawheen and I understand the context in which they were made. Their tenor was that it would be extraordinary for a minister to not know about the claims or the nature of the eventual settlements. It may not be the best outcome, but it is certainly not extraordinary. The reason is that we would not necessarily expect the minister—whether it was Hon Donna Faragher or the member for Mandurah—to have been aware of the claim or indeed of the later settlement unless the department had told the minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Wasn’t that in itself an issue, Attorney? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise. Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
I thank the member for his question. I can fully understand that members of the public would have serious concerns about the outcome of that matter in respect of those payments and the circumstances in which they were given. It is a matter that warrants some explanation. This explanation I will give as briefly as possible, but it is not without its complications. The Boorabbin incident occurred on 31 December 2007. In October 2008, two payments were made: one to Ms Bedford of $35 000 and one to Mr Taylor of $34 000. I will use the Bedford example, because it is illustrative of the process that was engaged in to reach those payments. A letter was received on 14 March 2008 from Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo, solicitors. That correspondence to the Insurance Commission of Western Australia indicated an action by the dependants of the late Mr Bedford. It indicated that the claim was to be made under the Fatal Accidents Act. Then in April, May and July of 2008 a range of correspondence passed between Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo and the State Solicitor’s Office. It needs to be noted that at that time the SSO was briefed to act for the state of Western Australia by RiskCover, who was the claims manager for the Department of Environment and Conservation. That, therefore, is the legal situation that was encountered. I might say at this time that the question is not whether Hon Donna Faragher knew about the fact of the action in the matter and the correspondence because, of course, she was not the minister at the time. I think the member for Mandurah was the relevant minister at the time. I have read some of the statements made by the member for Girrawheen and I understand the context in which they were made. Their tenor was that it would be extraordinary for a minister to not know about the claims or the nature of the eventual settlements. It may not be the best outcome, but it is certainly not extraordinary. The reason is that we would not necessarily expect the minister—whether it was Hon Donna Faragher or the member for Mandurah—to have been aware of the claim or indeed of the later settlement unless the department had told the minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Wasn’t that in itself an issue, Attorney? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise. Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
I can fully understand that members of the public would have serious concerns about the outcome of that matter in respect of those payments and the circumstances in which they were given. It is a matter that warrants some explanation. This explanation I will give as briefly as possible, but it is not without its complications. The Boorabbin incident occurred on 31 December 2007. In October 2008, two payments were made: one to Ms Bedford of $35 000 and one to Mr Taylor of $34 000. I will use the Bedford example, because it is illustrative of the process that was engaged in to reach those payments. A letter was received on 14 March 2008 from Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo, solicitors. That correspondence to the Insurance Commission of Western Australia indicated an action by the dependants of the late Mr Bedford. It indicated that the claim was to be made under the Fatal Accidents Act. Then in April, May and July of 2008 a range of correspondence passed between Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo and the State Solicitor’s Office. It needs to be noted that at that time the SSO was briefed to act for the state of Western Australia by RiskCover, who was the claims manager for the Department of Environment and Conservation. That, therefore, is the legal situation that was encountered. I might say at this time that the question is not whether Hon Donna Faragher knew about the fact of the action in the matter and the correspondence because, of course, she was not the minister at the time. I think the member for Mandurah was the relevant minister at the time. I have read some of the statements made by the member for Girrawheen and I understand the context in which they were made. Their tenor was that it would be extraordinary for a minister to not know about the claims or the nature of the eventual settlements. It may not be the best outcome, but it is certainly not extraordinary. The reason is that we would not necessarily expect the minister—whether it was Hon Donna Faragher or the member for Mandurah—to have been aware of the claim or indeed of the later settlement unless the department had told the minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Wasn’t that in itself an issue, Attorney? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise. Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
A letter was received on 14 March 2008 from Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo, solicitors. That correspondence to the Insurance Commission of Western Australia indicated an action by the dependants of the late Mr Bedford. It indicated that the claim was to be made under the Fatal Accidents Act. Then in April, May and July of 2008 a range of correspondence passed between Friedman Lurie Singh and D’Angelo and the State Solicitor’s Office. It needs to be noted that at that time the SSO was briefed to act for the state of Western Australia by RiskCover, who was the claims manager for the Department of Environment and Conservation. That, therefore, is the legal situation that was encountered. I might say at this time that the question is not whether Hon Donna Faragher knew about the fact of the action in the matter and the correspondence because, of course, she was not the minister at the time. I think the member for Mandurah was the relevant minister at the time. I have read some of the statements made by the member for Girrawheen and I understand the context in which they were made. Their tenor was that it would be extraordinary for a minister to not know about the claims or the nature of the eventual settlements. It may not be the best outcome, but it is certainly not extraordinary. The reason is that we would not necessarily expect the minister—whether it was Hon Donna Faragher or the member for Mandurah—to have been aware of the claim or indeed of the later settlement unless the department had told the minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Wasn’t that in itself an issue, Attorney? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise. Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
I might say at this time that the question is not whether Hon Donna Faragher knew about the fact of the action in the matter and the correspondence because, of course, she was not the minister at the time. I think the member for Mandurah was the relevant minister at the time. I have read some of the statements made by the member for Girrawheen and I understand the context in which they were made. Their tenor was that it would be extraordinary for a minister to not know about the claims or the nature of the eventual settlements. It may not be the best outcome, but it is certainly not extraordinary. The reason is that we would not necessarily expect the minister—whether it was Hon Donna Faragher or the member for Mandurah—to have been aware of the claim or indeed of the later settlement unless the department had told the minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Wasn’t that in itself an issue, Attorney? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise. Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Ms M.M. Quirk : Wasn’t that in itself an issue, Attorney? Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise. Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise. Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Ms M.M. Quirk : Excellent! Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER : It is an important issue to raise, but I am just clarifying here — Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr E.S. Ripper : You would have thought it would have been in the brief to the incoming new minister. Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER : It would have been had the previous minister known that the claim was underway. If the previous minister does not know — Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr E.S. Ripper : No; the department prepares the brief. Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER : Yes, but if the department did not tell the previous minister, we can see that the department was acting in a way in which we would not expect the department to tell the new minister. Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Ms M.M. Quirk : Exactly; the point I was making. The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
The SPEAKER : Thank you, members! Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER : That might be a situation that needs remedying. Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Ms M.M. Quirk : Yes. Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I believe it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I am just explaining to members how it arose. We will get onto that in a second. The reason we might think DEC would tell the previous minister or the present minister is that, although this is a legal matter and involves the settlement of claims, it obviously is contentious and involves matters of public interest. The ultimate payments in the circumstances are questions of good political judgement as well as questions of law. Nevertheless, it appears that the previous minister was not informed about the nature of either the claim or the correspondence, or the fact that it existed, and the present minister was not informed about the settlement. I agree that that is unsatisfactory but it is so because of the fact that it was State Solicitor’s Office representing RiskCover, which was representing the Department of Environment and Conservation. It was treated, for all intents and purposes, as a legal matter. The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
The final settlement was reached by deed of agreement, which was executed on 30 October 2008. As I said, the minister was not aware of that. It had a confidentiality clause. I consider that that was unsatisfactory but not necessarily unusual in matters of this type. It also contained a series of clauses that amounted to a waiver. This was an action that was purportedly under the Fatal Accidents Act, but the waiver was for all other actions, and so the money was given in full and final satisfaction of all and any claims whatsoever. There may be other claims at common law, such as breach of duty or negligence-type claims, or statutory claims of that nature; I am not sure. It is proper and necessary to state here three things. Firstly, I do not know whether or not other causes of action are available. Secondly, I do not know whether or not the action under the Fatal Accidents Act, if it had been successful, might have induced damages of greater than $35 000. Thirdly, everyone in the house and in the gallery must know that actions under the Fatal Accidents Act are peculiar legal matters. The complainant must show that he or she was dependent in some way on the deceased. If there is no dependency, even if there is an action, damages will not necessarily be awarded in the matter. Nevertheless, it is the present view of the government—this would have been the view of the government and no doubt the minister had she been aware of the situation—that the money should not have been given over in those circumstances and on those terms and conditions. It should not have been given over in a way that prevented the recipient from speaking about the matter or in a way that effectively stopped the recipient from taking other actions against the state, whatever they might have been. In all those circumstances, what we have done as a government, and what I have done as the first law officer of the state, is say that in all the circumstances of this case, we will not rely on those clauses in the deed of settlement. Ms Bedford and Mrs Taylor will be able to take any and all actions they wish to against the state and they will be able to speak about those matters as they wish. To say that it was extraordinary or somehow unusual is not correct. Unsatisfactory, yes. I would have thought that if I were in that position, I would have wanted my department to tell me about those matters. Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Ms M.M. Quirk : It is extraordinary that the director general kept his minister in the dark. Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER : In this case, two ministers have been kept in the dark. Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Ms M.M. Quirk : Even worse. Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER : I agree that that is an unsatisfactory situation. Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Ms M.M. Quirk interjected. Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
Mr C.C. PORTER : With respect, member for Girrawheen, it may be that any head of a department would be wise to inform the minister about what otherwise looks to be a routine claim if that claim arises out of a coronial inquiry. As a rule of thumb, I would have thought that would be absolutely appropriate. In any event, I am certain that this is a matter that Hon Donna Faragher will rectify.
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.