❓ Hon. Kate Doust asks about the status of prosecutions related to Cyclone George in 2007. The Attorney General clarifies that all prosecutions concluded in 2012 and provides a list of companies charged, also explaining the delay in coronial proceedings.
AnsweredQoN 637Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
CYCLONE GEORGE — CORONIAL INQUEST
637. Hon KATE DOUST to the
Attorney General:
I refer to cyclone George, which
swept through the Pilbara in early March 2007, and the response to my question
without notice 613 of 17 June 2014.
(1) Will the
minister provide a list of the companies that are currently being prosecuted;
and, if not, why not?
(2) At which stage is each of the
prosecutions?
(3) What are the reasons for the
delay in each prosecution more than seven years after the event?
(4) Has any prosecution been
discontinued; and, if so, which ones and for what reasons?
637. Hon KATE DOUST to the
Attorney General:
I refer to cyclone George, which
swept through the Pilbara in early March 2007, and the response to my question
without notice 613 of 17 June 2014.
(1) Will the
minister provide a list of the companies that are currently being prosecuted;
and, if not, why not?
(2) At which stage is each of the
prosecutions?
(3) What are the reasons for the
delay in each prosecution more than seven years after the event?
(4) Has any prosecution been
discontinued; and, if so, which ones and for what reasons?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for
some notice of the question.
(1)–(3) No
company is currently being prosecuted. All legal action in relation to cyclone
George by WorkSafe ended in March 2012 with all matters being dismissed. The
eight companies against which WorkSafe laid charges were Laing O'Rourke
(BMC) Pty Ltd; Spotless P&F Pty Ltd; BGC Contracting Pty Ltd; WorleyParsons
Services Pty Ltd; Fortescue Metals Group Ltd; The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty
Ltd; Spunbrood Pty Ltd trading as NT Link; and Spotless Services Australia
Limited.
(4) Charges were
withdrawn by WorkSafe against Spunbrood Pty Ltd trading as NT Link and Spotless
Services Australia Limited on advice from the State Solicitor's Office.
Mr President, this question may have
been asked because it is related to an answer that was given yesterday. Perhaps
I could seek leave to clarify my response to that question, which has a bearing
on some of the information that I have given today; or should I wait until the
end of question time to do so?
The PRESIDENT : You can do it either way, but you do not
need to seek leave. You can just continue in answering this question, if you
wish.
Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN : The answer that was given to part (2) of
the question that was asked yesterday was not as clear, on reflection, as it
could have been. It ought to have read more precisely as follows. As the case
was the subject of a prosecution, coronial proceedings could not commence until
the prosecution had concluded. Once the prosecution was completed, volumes of
files needed to be considered before a decision could be made regarding the
need for an inquest. The decision to hold an inquest into the matter is made by
the State Coroner, who is an independent judicial officer and is not subject to
my direction. Yesterday's answer could have been construed as conveying
that the prosecutions were currently underway. I hope that that has clarified
the matter, and I regret any confusion that may have arisen from that.
some notice of the question.
(1)–(3) No
company is currently being prosecuted. All legal action in relation to cyclone
George by WorkSafe ended in March 2012 with all matters being dismissed. The
eight companies against which WorkSafe laid charges were Laing O'Rourke
(BMC) Pty Ltd; Spotless P&F Pty Ltd; BGC Contracting Pty Ltd; WorleyParsons
Services Pty Ltd; Fortescue Metals Group Ltd; The Pilbara Infrastructure Pty
Ltd; Spunbrood Pty Ltd trading as NT Link; and Spotless Services Australia
Limited.
(4) Charges were
withdrawn by WorkSafe against Spunbrood Pty Ltd trading as NT Link and Spotless
Services Australia Limited on advice from the State Solicitor's Office.
Mr President, this question may have
been asked because it is related to an answer that was given yesterday. Perhaps
I could seek leave to clarify my response to that question, which has a bearing
on some of the information that I have given today; or should I wait until the
end of question time to do so?
The PRESIDENT : You can do it either way, but you do not
need to seek leave. You can just continue in answering this question, if you
wish.
Hon MICHAEL MISCHIN : The answer that was given to part (2) of
the question that was asked yesterday was not as clear, on reflection, as it
could have been. It ought to have read more precisely as follows. As the case
was the subject of a prosecution, coronial proceedings could not commence until
the prosecution had concluded. Once the prosecution was completed, volumes of
files needed to be considered before a decision could be made regarding the
need for an inquest. The decision to hold an inquest into the matter is made by
the State Coroner, who is an independent judicial officer and is not subject to
my direction. Yesterday's answer could have been construed as conveying
that the prosecutions were currently underway. I hope that that has clarified
the matter, and I regret any confusion that may have arisen from that.
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.