❓ Hon. Jon Ford questions Hon. Norman Moore regarding the tabling of a Section 45 report on BHP Billiton's operations, focusing on potential legal impediments due to possible litigation or coroner's involvement. Moore explains the report's nature and the State Solicitor's advice against tabling if it jeopardizes prosecution.
AnsweredQoN 448Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
BHP BILLITON — SECTION 45 REPORT
I refer to the section 45 report that was delivered to the minister at the end of last month into BHP Billiton’s operations and to the answers that he gave me in response to why the section 45 report may not be tabled in this house. As I remember, the minister was going to discuss it with the State Mining Engineer. The minister told me in a further discussion that there may be some legal impediment in that it is a report that belongs to the mining engineer. During a radio report this morning, I heard the minister announce that that report may not be released because of the possibility of litigation. Can the minister elaborate on the reasons the section 45 report may not be tabled in Parliament? Hon NORMAN MOORE
I refer to the section 45 report that was delivered to the minister at the end of last month into BHP Billiton’s operations and to the answers that he gave me in response to why the section 45 report may not be tabled in this house. As I remember, the minister was going to discuss it with the State Mining Engineer. The minister told me in a further discussion that there may be some legal impediment in that it is a report that belongs to the mining engineer. During a radio report this morning, I heard the minister announce that that report may not be released because of the possibility of litigation. Can the minister elaborate on the reasons the section 45 report may not be tabled in Parliament? Hon NORMAN MOORE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question. Let me explain this again in as clear terms as I can, which I thought I had done on Tuesday when the member asked me a question about this. I discovered that Hon Jon Ford had gone to ABC radio to cause some mischief. That is why I responded — Hon Jon Ford : They came to me. I gave them your response. Hon NORMAN MOORE : That is fine, but that is not what they told me. That is beside the point. That is the reason I was on the radio this morning explaining—in response to an issue the member had raised with them. A section 45 report under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act is a coercive report provided to the State Mining Engineer, who has a very significant role to play in respect of the mining industry and safety within the mining industry. He is the person who decides whether a company should make a report based on section 45 of the act. That comes about if a company is engaging in unsafe practices that he believes requires a particular response from those companies. It is not a report that happens on a regular basis. As a result of the three fatalities last year at BHP—ahead of my time, I might add—the State Mining Engineer, of his own volition, based upon his requirements under the act, required BHP to submit a section 45 report explaining itself in respect of those safety issues. That report is provided by BHP, or whatever the company happens to be, to the State Mining Engineer. It is his report. This has happened before. The most recent one that I am aware of related to a fatality at Boodarie. In that case the State Mining Engineer required a report under section 45. When that report was provided to the State Mining Engineer, he sought advice from the State Solicitor’s Office about what he could do with that report. The advice that came back related to the contents of the report. As it is a report provided under coercive legislation, it may in fact contain material that could lead to a prosecution. The previous issue also related to matters that could be referred to the coroner. The State Solicitor’s advice to Mr Logan, my predecessor, was that if there is any prospect that by tabling the report a prosecution may be jeopardised, or indeed a matter is referred to that will have to go to the coroner, the report should not be tabled. That is the advice that was provided, and that is the advice I explained to the member. The current report, which has been provided to the State Mining Engineer, is in his hands. I understand it comprises 1 000 pages. He got it last week. He will go through that and he will see what it contains. I have asked him to seek legal advice as to what can and cannot be tabled. I go along with the recommendation made by the State Solicitor’s Office to my predecessor: if the tabling of all or part of that report might jeopardise some future prosecution, or in fact might involve the Coroner’s Court, I will not table it. However, I make the point that I would like it to be tabled. I would like everybody to know what BHP is doing in respect of its safety issues. The only reason it would not be tabled in whole or in part is if the act of doing so would suggest, based on legal advice, that it might jeopardise the state’s case with respect to a future prosecution. I am not saying that there will be a future prosecution because I do not know. I have not seen the report; I do not know what is in it. I will get that advice from the State Mining Engineer, and I will take the appropriate action when we have the legal advice in relation to that report.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for the question. Let me explain this again in as clear terms as I can, which I thought I had done on Tuesday when the member asked me a question about this. I discovered that Hon Jon Ford had gone to ABC radio to cause some mischief. That is why I responded — Hon Jon Ford : They came to me. I gave them your response. Hon NORMAN MOORE : That is fine, but that is not what they told me. That is beside the point. That is the reason I was on the radio this morning explaining—in response to an issue the member had raised with them. A section 45 report under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act is a coercive report provided to the State Mining Engineer, who has a very significant role to play in respect of the mining industry and safety within the mining industry. He is the person who decides whether a company should make a report based on section 45 of the act. That comes about if a company is engaging in unsafe practices that he believes requires a particular response from those companies. It is not a report that happens on a regular basis. As a result of the three fatalities last year at BHP—ahead of my time, I might add—the State Mining Engineer, of his own volition, based upon his requirements under the act, required BHP to submit a section 45 report explaining itself in respect of those safety issues. That report is provided by BHP, or whatever the company happens to be, to the State Mining Engineer. It is his report. This has happened before. The most recent one that I am aware of related to a fatality at Boodarie. In that case the State Mining Engineer required a report under section 45. When that report was provided to the State Mining Engineer, he sought advice from the State Solicitor’s Office about what he could do with that report. The advice that came back related to the contents of the report. As it is a report provided under coercive legislation, it may in fact contain material that could lead to a prosecution. The previous issue also related to matters that could be referred to the coroner. The State Solicitor’s advice to Mr Logan, my predecessor, was that if there is any prospect that by tabling the report a prosecution may be jeopardised, or indeed a matter is referred to that will have to go to the coroner, the report should not be tabled. That is the advice that was provided, and that is the advice I explained to the member. The current report, which has been provided to the State Mining Engineer, is in his hands. I understand it comprises 1 000 pages. He got it last week. He will go through that and he will see what it contains. I have asked him to seek legal advice as to what can and cannot be tabled. I go along with the recommendation made by the State Solicitor’s Office to my predecessor: if the tabling of all or part of that report might jeopardise some future prosecution, or in fact might involve the Coroner’s Court, I will not table it. However, I make the point that I would like it to be tabled. I would like everybody to know what BHP is doing in respect of its safety issues. The only reason it would not be tabled in whole or in part is if the act of doing so would suggest, based on legal advice, that it might jeopardise the state’s case with respect to a future prosecution. I am not saying that there will be a future prosecution because I do not know. I have not seen the report; I do not know what is in it. I will get that advice from the State Mining Engineer, and I will take the appropriate action when we have the legal advice in relation to that report.
I thank the member for the question. Let me explain this again in as clear terms as I can, which I thought I had done on Tuesday when the member asked me a question about this. I discovered that Hon Jon Ford had gone to ABC radio to cause some mischief. That is why I responded — Hon Jon Ford : They came to me. I gave them your response. Hon NORMAN MOORE : That is fine, but that is not what they told me. That is beside the point. That is the reason I was on the radio this morning explaining—in response to an issue the member had raised with them. A section 45 report under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act is a coercive report provided to the State Mining Engineer, who has a very significant role to play in respect of the mining industry and safety within the mining industry. He is the person who decides whether a company should make a report based on section 45 of the act. That comes about if a company is engaging in unsafe practices that he believes requires a particular response from those companies. It is not a report that happens on a regular basis. As a result of the three fatalities last year at BHP—ahead of my time, I might add—the State Mining Engineer, of his own volition, based upon his requirements under the act, required BHP to submit a section 45 report explaining itself in respect of those safety issues. That report is provided by BHP, or whatever the company happens to be, to the State Mining Engineer. It is his report. This has happened before. The most recent one that I am aware of related to a fatality at Boodarie. In that case the State Mining Engineer required a report under section 45. When that report was provided to the State Mining Engineer, he sought advice from the State Solicitor’s Office about what he could do with that report. The advice that came back related to the contents of the report. As it is a report provided under coercive legislation, it may in fact contain material that could lead to a prosecution. The previous issue also related to matters that could be referred to the coroner. The State Solicitor’s advice to Mr Logan, my predecessor, was that if there is any prospect that by tabling the report a prosecution may be jeopardised, or indeed a matter is referred to that will have to go to the coroner, the report should not be tabled. That is the advice that was provided, and that is the advice I explained to the member. The current report, which has been provided to the State Mining Engineer, is in his hands. I understand it comprises 1 000 pages. He got it last week. He will go through that and he will see what it contains. I have asked him to seek legal advice as to what can and cannot be tabled. I go along with the recommendation made by the State Solicitor’s Office to my predecessor: if the tabling of all or part of that report might jeopardise some future prosecution, or in fact might involve the Coroner’s Court, I will not table it. However, I make the point that I would like it to be tabled. I would like everybody to know what BHP is doing in respect of its safety issues. The only reason it would not be tabled in whole or in part is if the act of doing so would suggest, based on legal advice, that it might jeopardise the state’s case with respect to a future prosecution. I am not saying that there will be a future prosecution because I do not know. I have not seen the report; I do not know what is in it. I will get that advice from the State Mining Engineer, and I will take the appropriate action when we have the legal advice in relation to that report.
Hon Jon Ford : They came to me. I gave them your response. Hon NORMAN MOORE : That is fine, but that is not what they told me. That is beside the point. That is the reason I was on the radio this morning explaining—in response to an issue the member had raised with them. A section 45 report under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act is a coercive report provided to the State Mining Engineer, who has a very significant role to play in respect of the mining industry and safety within the mining industry. He is the person who decides whether a company should make a report based on section 45 of the act. That comes about if a company is engaging in unsafe practices that he believes requires a particular response from those companies. It is not a report that happens on a regular basis. As a result of the three fatalities last year at BHP—ahead of my time, I might add—the State Mining Engineer, of his own volition, based upon his requirements under the act, required BHP to submit a section 45 report explaining itself in respect of those safety issues. That report is provided by BHP, or whatever the company happens to be, to the State Mining Engineer. It is his report. This has happened before. The most recent one that I am aware of related to a fatality at Boodarie. In that case the State Mining Engineer required a report under section 45. When that report was provided to the State Mining Engineer, he sought advice from the State Solicitor’s Office about what he could do with that report. The advice that came back related to the contents of the report. As it is a report provided under coercive legislation, it may in fact contain material that could lead to a prosecution. The previous issue also related to matters that could be referred to the coroner. The State Solicitor’s advice to Mr Logan, my predecessor, was that if there is any prospect that by tabling the report a prosecution may be jeopardised, or indeed a matter is referred to that will have to go to the coroner, the report should not be tabled. That is the advice that was provided, and that is the advice I explained to the member. The current report, which has been provided to the State Mining Engineer, is in his hands. I understand it comprises 1 000 pages. He got it last week. He will go through that and he will see what it contains. I have asked him to seek legal advice as to what can and cannot be tabled. I go along with the recommendation made by the State Solicitor’s Office to my predecessor: if the tabling of all or part of that report might jeopardise some future prosecution, or in fact might involve the Coroner’s Court, I will not table it. However, I make the point that I would like it to be tabled. I would like everybody to know what BHP is doing in respect of its safety issues. The only reason it would not be tabled in whole or in part is if the act of doing so would suggest, based on legal advice, that it might jeopardise the state’s case with respect to a future prosecution. I am not saying that there will be a future prosecution because I do not know. I have not seen the report; I do not know what is in it. I will get that advice from the State Mining Engineer, and I will take the appropriate action when we have the legal advice in relation to that report.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : That is fine, but that is not what they told me. That is beside the point. That is the reason I was on the radio this morning explaining—in response to an issue the member had raised with them. A section 45 report under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act is a coercive report provided to the State Mining Engineer, who has a very significant role to play in respect of the mining industry and safety within the mining industry. He is the person who decides whether a company should make a report based on section 45 of the act. That comes about if a company is engaging in unsafe practices that he believes requires a particular response from those companies. It is not a report that happens on a regular basis. As a result of the three fatalities last year at BHP—ahead of my time, I might add—the State Mining Engineer, of his own volition, based upon his requirements under the act, required BHP to submit a section 45 report explaining itself in respect of those safety issues. That report is provided by BHP, or whatever the company happens to be, to the State Mining Engineer. It is his report. This has happened before. The most recent one that I am aware of related to a fatality at Boodarie. In that case the State Mining Engineer required a report under section 45. When that report was provided to the State Mining Engineer, he sought advice from the State Solicitor’s Office about what he could do with that report. The advice that came back related to the contents of the report. As it is a report provided under coercive legislation, it may in fact contain material that could lead to a prosecution. The previous issue also related to matters that could be referred to the coroner. The State Solicitor’s advice to Mr Logan, my predecessor, was that if there is any prospect that by tabling the report a prosecution may be jeopardised, or indeed a matter is referred to that will have to go to the coroner, the report should not be tabled. That is the advice that was provided, and that is the advice I explained to the member. The current report, which has been provided to the State Mining Engineer, is in his hands. I understand it comprises 1 000 pages. He got it last week. He will go through that and he will see what it contains. I have asked him to seek legal advice as to what can and cannot be tabled. I go along with the recommendation made by the State Solicitor’s Office to my predecessor: if the tabling of all or part of that report might jeopardise some future prosecution, or in fact might involve the Coroner’s Court, I will not table it. However, I make the point that I would like it to be tabled. I would like everybody to know what BHP is doing in respect of its safety issues. The only reason it would not be tabled in whole or in part is if the act of doing so would suggest, based on legal advice, that it might jeopardise the state’s case with respect to a future prosecution. I am not saying that there will be a future prosecution because I do not know. I have not seen the report; I do not know what is in it. I will get that advice from the State Mining Engineer, and I will take the appropriate action when we have the legal advice in relation to that report.
A section 45 report under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act is a coercive report provided to the State Mining Engineer, who has a very significant role to play in respect of the mining industry and safety within the mining industry. He is the person who decides whether a company should make a report based on section 45 of the act. That comes about if a company is engaging in unsafe practices that he believes requires a particular response from those companies. It is not a report that happens on a regular basis. As a result of the three fatalities last year at BHP—ahead of my time, I might add—the State Mining Engineer, of his own volition, based upon his requirements under the act, required BHP to submit a section 45 report explaining itself in respect of those safety issues. That report is provided by BHP, or whatever the company happens to be, to the State Mining Engineer. It is his report. This has happened before. The most recent one that I am aware of related to a fatality at Boodarie. In that case the State Mining Engineer required a report under section 45. When that report was provided to the State Mining Engineer, he sought advice from the State Solicitor’s Office about what he could do with that report. The advice that came back related to the contents of the report. As it is a report provided under coercive legislation, it may in fact contain material that could lead to a prosecution. The previous issue also related to matters that could be referred to the coroner. The State Solicitor’s advice to Mr Logan, my predecessor, was that if there is any prospect that by tabling the report a prosecution may be jeopardised, or indeed a matter is referred to that will have to go to the coroner, the report should not be tabled. That is the advice that was provided, and that is the advice I explained to the member. The current report, which has been provided to the State Mining Engineer, is in his hands. I understand it comprises 1 000 pages. He got it last week. He will go through that and he will see what it contains. I have asked him to seek legal advice as to what can and cannot be tabled. I go along with the recommendation made by the State Solicitor’s Office to my predecessor: if the tabling of all or part of that report might jeopardise some future prosecution, or in fact might involve the Coroner’s Court, I will not table it. However, I make the point that I would like it to be tabled. I would like everybody to know what BHP is doing in respect of its safety issues. The only reason it would not be tabled in whole or in part is if the act of doing so would suggest, based on legal advice, that it might jeopardise the state’s case with respect to a future prosecution. I am not saying that there will be a future prosecution because I do not know. I have not seen the report; I do not know what is in it. I will get that advice from the State Mining Engineer, and I will take the appropriate action when we have the legal advice in relation to that report.
As a result of the three fatalities last year at BHP—ahead of my time, I might add—the State Mining Engineer, of his own volition, based upon his requirements under the act, required BHP to submit a section 45 report explaining itself in respect of those safety issues. That report is provided by BHP, or whatever the company happens to be, to the State Mining Engineer. It is his report. This has happened before. The most recent one that I am aware of related to a fatality at Boodarie. In that case the State Mining Engineer required a report under section 45. When that report was provided to the State Mining Engineer, he sought advice from the State Solicitor’s Office about what he could do with that report. The advice that came back related to the contents of the report. As it is a report provided under coercive legislation, it may in fact contain material that could lead to a prosecution. The previous issue also related to matters that could be referred to the coroner. The State Solicitor’s advice to Mr Logan, my predecessor, was that if there is any prospect that by tabling the report a prosecution may be jeopardised, or indeed a matter is referred to that will have to go to the coroner, the report should not be tabled. That is the advice that was provided, and that is the advice I explained to the member. The current report, which has been provided to the State Mining Engineer, is in his hands. I understand it comprises 1 000 pages. He got it last week. He will go through that and he will see what it contains. I have asked him to seek legal advice as to what can and cannot be tabled. I go along with the recommendation made by the State Solicitor’s Office to my predecessor: if the tabling of all or part of that report might jeopardise some future prosecution, or in fact might involve the Coroner’s Court, I will not table it. However, I make the point that I would like it to be tabled. I would like everybody to know what BHP is doing in respect of its safety issues. The only reason it would not be tabled in whole or in part is if the act of doing so would suggest, based on legal advice, that it might jeopardise the state’s case with respect to a future prosecution. I am not saying that there will be a future prosecution because I do not know. I have not seen the report; I do not know what is in it. I will get that advice from the State Mining Engineer, and I will take the appropriate action when we have the legal advice in relation to that report.
The current report, which has been provided to the State Mining Engineer, is in his hands. I understand it comprises 1 000 pages. He got it last week. He will go through that and he will see what it contains. I have asked him to seek legal advice as to what can and cannot be tabled. I go along with the recommendation made by the State Solicitor’s Office to my predecessor: if the tabling of all or part of that report might jeopardise some future prosecution, or in fact might involve the Coroner’s Court, I will not table it. However, I make the point that I would like it to be tabled. I would like everybody to know what BHP is doing in respect of its safety issues. The only reason it would not be tabled in whole or in part is if the act of doing so would suggest, based on legal advice, that it might jeopardise the state’s case with respect to a future prosecution. I am not saying that there will be a future prosecution because I do not know. I have not seen the report; I do not know what is in it. I will get that advice from the State Mining Engineer, and I will take the appropriate action when we have the legal advice in relation to that report.
Hon NORMAN MOORE replied: I thank the member for the question. Let me explain this again in as clear terms as I can, which I thought I had done on Tuesday when the member asked me a question about this. I discovered that Hon Jon Ford had gone to ABC radio to cause some mischief. That is why I responded — Hon Jon Ford : They came to me. I gave them your response. Hon NORMAN MOORE : That is fine, but that is not what they told me. That is beside the point. That is the reason I was on the radio this morning explaining—in response to an issue the member had raised with them. A section 45 report under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act is a coercive report provided to the State Mining Engineer, who has a very significant role to play in respect of the mining industry and safety within the mining industry. He is the person who decides whether a company should make a report based on section 45 of the act. That comes about if a company is engaging in unsafe practices that he believes requires a particular response from those companies. It is not a report that happens on a regular basis. As a result of the three fatalities last year at BHP—ahead of my time, I might add—the State Mining Engineer, of his own volition, based upon his requirements under the act, required BHP to submit a section 45 report explaining itself in respect of those safety issues. That report is provided by BHP, or whatever the company happens to be, to the State Mining Engineer. It is his report. This has happened before. The most recent one that I am aware of related to a fatality at Boodarie. In that case the State Mining Engineer required a report under section 45. When that report was provided to the State Mining Engineer, he sought advice from the State Solicitor’s Office about what he could do with that report. The advice that came back related to the contents of the report. As it is a report provided under coercive legislation, it may in fact contain material that could lead to a prosecution. The previous issue also related to matters that could be referred to the coroner. The State Solicitor’s advice to Mr Logan, my predecessor, was that if there is any prospect that by tabling the report a prosecution may be jeopardised, or indeed a matter is referred to that will have to go to the coroner, the report should not be tabled. That is the advice that was provided, and that is the advice I explained to the member. The current report, which has been provided to the State Mining Engineer, is in his hands. I understand it comprises 1 000 pages. He got it last week. He will go through that and he will see what it contains. I have asked him to seek legal advice as to what can and cannot be tabled. I go along with the recommendation made by the State Solicitor’s Office to my predecessor: if the tabling of all or part of that report might jeopardise some future prosecution, or in fact might involve the Coroner’s Court, I will not table it. However, I make the point that I would like it to be tabled. I would like everybody to know what BHP is doing in respect of its safety issues. The only reason it would not be tabled in whole or in part is if the act of doing so would suggest, based on legal advice, that it might jeopardise the state’s case with respect to a future prosecution. I am not saying that there will be a future prosecution because I do not know. I have not seen the report; I do not know what is in it. I will get that advice from the State Mining Engineer, and I will take the appropriate action when we have the legal advice in relation to that report.
I thank the member for the question. Let me explain this again in as clear terms as I can, which I thought I had done on Tuesday when the member asked me a question about this. I discovered that Hon Jon Ford had gone to ABC radio to cause some mischief. That is why I responded — Hon Jon Ford : They came to me. I gave them your response. Hon NORMAN MOORE : That is fine, but that is not what they told me. That is beside the point. That is the reason I was on the radio this morning explaining—in response to an issue the member had raised with them. A section 45 report under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act is a coercive report provided to the State Mining Engineer, who has a very significant role to play in respect of the mining industry and safety within the mining industry. He is the person who decides whether a company should make a report based on section 45 of the act. That comes about if a company is engaging in unsafe practices that he believes requires a particular response from those companies. It is not a report that happens on a regular basis. As a result of the three fatalities last year at BHP—ahead of my time, I might add—the State Mining Engineer, of his own volition, based upon his requirements under the act, required BHP to submit a section 45 report explaining itself in respect of those safety issues. That report is provided by BHP, or whatever the company happens to be, to the State Mining Engineer. It is his report. This has happened before. The most recent one that I am aware of related to a fatality at Boodarie. In that case the State Mining Engineer required a report under section 45. When that report was provided to the State Mining Engineer, he sought advice from the State Solicitor’s Office about what he could do with that report. The advice that came back related to the contents of the report. As it is a report provided under coercive legislation, it may in fact contain material that could lead to a prosecution. The previous issue also related to matters that could be referred to the coroner. The State Solicitor’s advice to Mr Logan, my predecessor, was that if there is any prospect that by tabling the report a prosecution may be jeopardised, or indeed a matter is referred to that will have to go to the coroner, the report should not be tabled. That is the advice that was provided, and that is the advice I explained to the member. The current report, which has been provided to the State Mining Engineer, is in his hands. I understand it comprises 1 000 pages. He got it last week. He will go through that and he will see what it contains. I have asked him to seek legal advice as to what can and cannot be tabled. I go along with the recommendation made by the State Solicitor’s Office to my predecessor: if the tabling of all or part of that report might jeopardise some future prosecution, or in fact might involve the Coroner’s Court, I will not table it. However, I make the point that I would like it to be tabled. I would like everybody to know what BHP is doing in respect of its safety issues. The only reason it would not be tabled in whole or in part is if the act of doing so would suggest, based on legal advice, that it might jeopardise the state’s case with respect to a future prosecution. I am not saying that there will be a future prosecution because I do not know. I have not seen the report; I do not know what is in it. I will get that advice from the State Mining Engineer, and I will take the appropriate action when we have the legal advice in relation to that report.
Hon Jon Ford : They came to me. I gave them your response. Hon NORMAN MOORE : That is fine, but that is not what they told me. That is beside the point. That is the reason I was on the radio this morning explaining—in response to an issue the member had raised with them. A section 45 report under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act is a coercive report provided to the State Mining Engineer, who has a very significant role to play in respect of the mining industry and safety within the mining industry. He is the person who decides whether a company should make a report based on section 45 of the act. That comes about if a company is engaging in unsafe practices that he believes requires a particular response from those companies. It is not a report that happens on a regular basis. As a result of the three fatalities last year at BHP—ahead of my time, I might add—the State Mining Engineer, of his own volition, based upon his requirements under the act, required BHP to submit a section 45 report explaining itself in respect of those safety issues. That report is provided by BHP, or whatever the company happens to be, to the State Mining Engineer. It is his report. This has happened before. The most recent one that I am aware of related to a fatality at Boodarie. In that case the State Mining Engineer required a report under section 45. When that report was provided to the State Mining Engineer, he sought advice from the State Solicitor’s Office about what he could do with that report. The advice that came back related to the contents of the report. As it is a report provided under coercive legislation, it may in fact contain material that could lead to a prosecution. The previous issue also related to matters that could be referred to the coroner. The State Solicitor’s advice to Mr Logan, my predecessor, was that if there is any prospect that by tabling the report a prosecution may be jeopardised, or indeed a matter is referred to that will have to go to the coroner, the report should not be tabled. That is the advice that was provided, and that is the advice I explained to the member. The current report, which has been provided to the State Mining Engineer, is in his hands. I understand it comprises 1 000 pages. He got it last week. He will go through that and he will see what it contains. I have asked him to seek legal advice as to what can and cannot be tabled. I go along with the recommendation made by the State Solicitor’s Office to my predecessor: if the tabling of all or part of that report might jeopardise some future prosecution, or in fact might involve the Coroner’s Court, I will not table it. However, I make the point that I would like it to be tabled. I would like everybody to know what BHP is doing in respect of its safety issues. The only reason it would not be tabled in whole or in part is if the act of doing so would suggest, based on legal advice, that it might jeopardise the state’s case with respect to a future prosecution. I am not saying that there will be a future prosecution because I do not know. I have not seen the report; I do not know what is in it. I will get that advice from the State Mining Engineer, and I will take the appropriate action when we have the legal advice in relation to that report.
Hon NORMAN MOORE : That is fine, but that is not what they told me. That is beside the point. That is the reason I was on the radio this morning explaining—in response to an issue the member had raised with them. A section 45 report under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act is a coercive report provided to the State Mining Engineer, who has a very significant role to play in respect of the mining industry and safety within the mining industry. He is the person who decides whether a company should make a report based on section 45 of the act. That comes about if a company is engaging in unsafe practices that he believes requires a particular response from those companies. It is not a report that happens on a regular basis. As a result of the three fatalities last year at BHP—ahead of my time, I might add—the State Mining Engineer, of his own volition, based upon his requirements under the act, required BHP to submit a section 45 report explaining itself in respect of those safety issues. That report is provided by BHP, or whatever the company happens to be, to the State Mining Engineer. It is his report. This has happened before. The most recent one that I am aware of related to a fatality at Boodarie. In that case the State Mining Engineer required a report under section 45. When that report was provided to the State Mining Engineer, he sought advice from the State Solicitor’s Office about what he could do with that report. The advice that came back related to the contents of the report. As it is a report provided under coercive legislation, it may in fact contain material that could lead to a prosecution. The previous issue also related to matters that could be referred to the coroner. The State Solicitor’s advice to Mr Logan, my predecessor, was that if there is any prospect that by tabling the report a prosecution may be jeopardised, or indeed a matter is referred to that will have to go to the coroner, the report should not be tabled. That is the advice that was provided, and that is the advice I explained to the member. The current report, which has been provided to the State Mining Engineer, is in his hands. I understand it comprises 1 000 pages. He got it last week. He will go through that and he will see what it contains. I have asked him to seek legal advice as to what can and cannot be tabled. I go along with the recommendation made by the State Solicitor’s Office to my predecessor: if the tabling of all or part of that report might jeopardise some future prosecution, or in fact might involve the Coroner’s Court, I will not table it. However, I make the point that I would like it to be tabled. I would like everybody to know what BHP is doing in respect of its safety issues. The only reason it would not be tabled in whole or in part is if the act of doing so would suggest, based on legal advice, that it might jeopardise the state’s case with respect to a future prosecution. I am not saying that there will be a future prosecution because I do not know. I have not seen the report; I do not know what is in it. I will get that advice from the State Mining Engineer, and I will take the appropriate action when we have the legal advice in relation to that report.
A section 45 report under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act is a coercive report provided to the State Mining Engineer, who has a very significant role to play in respect of the mining industry and safety within the mining industry. He is the person who decides whether a company should make a report based on section 45 of the act. That comes about if a company is engaging in unsafe practices that he believes requires a particular response from those companies. It is not a report that happens on a regular basis. As a result of the three fatalities last year at BHP—ahead of my time, I might add—the State Mining Engineer, of his own volition, based upon his requirements under the act, required BHP to submit a section 45 report explaining itself in respect of those safety issues. That report is provided by BHP, or whatever the company happens to be, to the State Mining Engineer. It is his report. This has happened before. The most recent one that I am aware of related to a fatality at Boodarie. In that case the State Mining Engineer required a report under section 45. When that report was provided to the State Mining Engineer, he sought advice from the State Solicitor’s Office about what he could do with that report. The advice that came back related to the contents of the report. As it is a report provided under coercive legislation, it may in fact contain material that could lead to a prosecution. The previous issue also related to matters that could be referred to the coroner. The State Solicitor’s advice to Mr Logan, my predecessor, was that if there is any prospect that by tabling the report a prosecution may be jeopardised, or indeed a matter is referred to that will have to go to the coroner, the report should not be tabled. That is the advice that was provided, and that is the advice I explained to the member. The current report, which has been provided to the State Mining Engineer, is in his hands. I understand it comprises 1 000 pages. He got it last week. He will go through that and he will see what it contains. I have asked him to seek legal advice as to what can and cannot be tabled. I go along with the recommendation made by the State Solicitor’s Office to my predecessor: if the tabling of all or part of that report might jeopardise some future prosecution, or in fact might involve the Coroner’s Court, I will not table it. However, I make the point that I would like it to be tabled. I would like everybody to know what BHP is doing in respect of its safety issues. The only reason it would not be tabled in whole or in part is if the act of doing so would suggest, based on legal advice, that it might jeopardise the state’s case with respect to a future prosecution. I am not saying that there will be a future prosecution because I do not know. I have not seen the report; I do not know what is in it. I will get that advice from the State Mining Engineer, and I will take the appropriate action when we have the legal advice in relation to that report.
As a result of the three fatalities last year at BHP—ahead of my time, I might add—the State Mining Engineer, of his own volition, based upon his requirements under the act, required BHP to submit a section 45 report explaining itself in respect of those safety issues. That report is provided by BHP, or whatever the company happens to be, to the State Mining Engineer. It is his report. This has happened before. The most recent one that I am aware of related to a fatality at Boodarie. In that case the State Mining Engineer required a report under section 45. When that report was provided to the State Mining Engineer, he sought advice from the State Solicitor’s Office about what he could do with that report. The advice that came back related to the contents of the report. As it is a report provided under coercive legislation, it may in fact contain material that could lead to a prosecution. The previous issue also related to matters that could be referred to the coroner. The State Solicitor’s advice to Mr Logan, my predecessor, was that if there is any prospect that by tabling the report a prosecution may be jeopardised, or indeed a matter is referred to that will have to go to the coroner, the report should not be tabled. That is the advice that was provided, and that is the advice I explained to the member. The current report, which has been provided to the State Mining Engineer, is in his hands. I understand it comprises 1 000 pages. He got it last week. He will go through that and he will see what it contains. I have asked him to seek legal advice as to what can and cannot be tabled. I go along with the recommendation made by the State Solicitor’s Office to my predecessor: if the tabling of all or part of that report might jeopardise some future prosecution, or in fact might involve the Coroner’s Court, I will not table it. However, I make the point that I would like it to be tabled. I would like everybody to know what BHP is doing in respect of its safety issues. The only reason it would not be tabled in whole or in part is if the act of doing so would suggest, based on legal advice, that it might jeopardise the state’s case with respect to a future prosecution. I am not saying that there will be a future prosecution because I do not know. I have not seen the report; I do not know what is in it. I will get that advice from the State Mining Engineer, and I will take the appropriate action when we have the legal advice in relation to that report.
The current report, which has been provided to the State Mining Engineer, is in his hands. I understand it comprises 1 000 pages. He got it last week. He will go through that and he will see what it contains. I have asked him to seek legal advice as to what can and cannot be tabled. I go along with the recommendation made by the State Solicitor’s Office to my predecessor: if the tabling of all or part of that report might jeopardise some future prosecution, or in fact might involve the Coroner’s Court, I will not table it. However, I make the point that I would like it to be tabled. I would like everybody to know what BHP is doing in respect of its safety issues. The only reason it would not be tabled in whole or in part is if the act of doing so would suggest, based on legal advice, that it might jeopardise the state’s case with respect to a future prosecution. I am not saying that there will be a future prosecution because I do not know. I have not seen the report; I do not know what is in it. I will get that advice from the State Mining Engineer, and I will take the appropriate action when we have the legal advice in relation to that report.
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.