❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding Mark Paxton's fishing licence cancellation and subsequent investigation. The Minister declines to table the report due to ongoing legal proceedings and potential waiver of legal professional privilege.
AnsweredQoN 615Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
MR MARK PAXTON — FISHING LICENCE
I refer the minister, who I gather is paired again, to his answer to question without notice 527 concerning Mr Mark Paxton’s grievance. (1) Is the minister aware that the previous minister wrote to Mr Paxton on 22 November 2004 and stated that Mr Paxton was granted an exemption to fish while the department finalised an investigation into claims raised by Mr Paxton concerning the cancellation of an Abrolhos Islands and mid-west trawl managed fishery licence? (2) Was such an investigation undertaken; and, if not, why not? (3) If the departmental investigation was undertaken, will the minister table a copy of the report of the investigation; and, if not, why not? (4) If the minister refuses to table the report, will the minister outline the findings of the investigation? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH
I refer the minister, who I gather is paired again, to his answer to question without notice 527 concerning Mr Mark Paxton’s grievance. (1) Is the minister aware that the previous minister wrote to Mr Paxton on 22 November 2004 and stated that Mr Paxton was granted an exemption to fish while the department finalised an investigation into claims raised by Mr Paxton concerning the cancellation of an Abrolhos Islands and mid-west trawl managed fishery licence? (2) Was such an investigation undertaken; and, if not, why not? (3) If the departmental investigation was undertaken, will the minister table a copy of the report of the investigation; and, if not, why not? (4) If the minister refuses to table the report, will the minister outline the findings of the investigation? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH
AnswerView source ↗
On behalf of the minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Yes. (3) No. Mr Paxton has initiated several unsuccessful legal proceedings in relation to this matter. A Supreme Court proceeding by Mr Paxton against the former CEO of the department and me remains ongoing. On legal advice, I will not be releasing documents relating to this matter that potentially involve waiver of legal professional privilege. (4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
(1) Is the minister aware that the previous minister wrote to Mr Paxton on 22 November 2004 and stated that Mr Paxton was granted an exemption to fish while the department finalised an investigation into claims raised by Mr Paxton concerning the cancellation of an Abrolhos Islands and mid-west trawl managed fishery licence? (2) Was such an investigation undertaken; and, if not, why not? (3) If the departmental investigation was undertaken, will the minister table a copy of the report of the investigation; and, if not, why not? (4) If the minister refuses to table the report, will the minister outline the findings of the investigation? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: On behalf of the minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Yes. (3) No. Mr Paxton has initiated several unsuccessful legal proceedings in relation to this matter. A Supreme Court proceeding by Mr Paxton against the former CEO of the department and me remains ongoing. On legal advice, I will not be releasing documents relating to this matter that potentially involve waiver of legal professional privilege. (4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
(2) Was such an investigation undertaken; and, if not, why not? (3) If the departmental investigation was undertaken, will the minister table a copy of the report of the investigation; and, if not, why not? (4) If the minister refuses to table the report, will the minister outline the findings of the investigation? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: On behalf of the minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Yes. (3) No. Mr Paxton has initiated several unsuccessful legal proceedings in relation to this matter. A Supreme Court proceeding by Mr Paxton against the former CEO of the department and me remains ongoing. On legal advice, I will not be releasing documents relating to this matter that potentially involve waiver of legal professional privilege. (4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
(3) If the departmental investigation was undertaken, will the minister table a copy of the report of the investigation; and, if not, why not? (4) If the minister refuses to table the report, will the minister outline the findings of the investigation? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: On behalf of the minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Yes. (3) No. Mr Paxton has initiated several unsuccessful legal proceedings in relation to this matter. A Supreme Court proceeding by Mr Paxton against the former CEO of the department and me remains ongoing. On legal advice, I will not be releasing documents relating to this matter that potentially involve waiver of legal professional privilege. (4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
(4) If the minister refuses to table the report, will the minister outline the findings of the investigation? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: On behalf of the minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Yes. (3) No. Mr Paxton has initiated several unsuccessful legal proceedings in relation to this matter. A Supreme Court proceeding by Mr Paxton against the former CEO of the department and me remains ongoing. On legal advice, I will not be releasing documents relating to this matter that potentially involve waiver of legal professional privilege. (4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: On behalf of the minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Yes. (3) No. Mr Paxton has initiated several unsuccessful legal proceedings in relation to this matter. A Supreme Court proceeding by Mr Paxton against the former CEO of the department and me remains ongoing. On legal advice, I will not be releasing documents relating to this matter that potentially involve waiver of legal professional privilege. (4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
On behalf of the minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Yes. (3) No. Mr Paxton has initiated several unsuccessful legal proceedings in relation to this matter. A Supreme Court proceeding by Mr Paxton against the former CEO of the department and me remains ongoing. On legal advice, I will not be releasing documents relating to this matter that potentially involve waiver of legal professional privilege. (4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
(1)-(2) Yes. (3) No. Mr Paxton has initiated several unsuccessful legal proceedings in relation to this matter. A Supreme Court proceeding by Mr Paxton against the former CEO of the department and me remains ongoing. On legal advice, I will not be releasing documents relating to this matter that potentially involve waiver of legal professional privilege. (4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
(3) No. Mr Paxton has initiated several unsuccessful legal proceedings in relation to this matter. A Supreme Court proceeding by Mr Paxton against the former CEO of the department and me remains ongoing. On legal advice, I will not be releasing documents relating to this matter that potentially involve waiver of legal professional privilege. (4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
(4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
(1) Is the minister aware that the previous minister wrote to Mr Paxton on 22 November 2004 and stated that Mr Paxton was granted an exemption to fish while the department finalised an investigation into claims raised by Mr Paxton concerning the cancellation of an Abrolhos Islands and mid-west trawl managed fishery licence? (2) Was such an investigation undertaken; and, if not, why not? (3) If the departmental investigation was undertaken, will the minister table a copy of the report of the investigation; and, if not, why not? (4) If the minister refuses to table the report, will the minister outline the findings of the investigation? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: On behalf of the minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Yes. (3) No. Mr Paxton has initiated several unsuccessful legal proceedings in relation to this matter. A Supreme Court proceeding by Mr Paxton against the former CEO of the department and me remains ongoing. On legal advice, I will not be releasing documents relating to this matter that potentially involve waiver of legal professional privilege. (4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
(2) Was such an investigation undertaken; and, if not, why not? (3) If the departmental investigation was undertaken, will the minister table a copy of the report of the investigation; and, if not, why not? (4) If the minister refuses to table the report, will the minister outline the findings of the investigation? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: On behalf of the minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Yes. (3) No. Mr Paxton has initiated several unsuccessful legal proceedings in relation to this matter. A Supreme Court proceeding by Mr Paxton against the former CEO of the department and me remains ongoing. On legal advice, I will not be releasing documents relating to this matter that potentially involve waiver of legal professional privilege. (4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
(3) If the departmental investigation was undertaken, will the minister table a copy of the report of the investigation; and, if not, why not? (4) If the minister refuses to table the report, will the minister outline the findings of the investigation? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: On behalf of the minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Yes. (3) No. Mr Paxton has initiated several unsuccessful legal proceedings in relation to this matter. A Supreme Court proceeding by Mr Paxton against the former CEO of the department and me remains ongoing. On legal advice, I will not be releasing documents relating to this matter that potentially involve waiver of legal professional privilege. (4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
(4) If the minister refuses to table the report, will the minister outline the findings of the investigation? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: On behalf of the minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Yes. (3) No. Mr Paxton has initiated several unsuccessful legal proceedings in relation to this matter. A Supreme Court proceeding by Mr Paxton against the former CEO of the department and me remains ongoing. On legal advice, I will not be releasing documents relating to this matter that potentially involve waiver of legal professional privilege. (4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: On behalf of the minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Yes. (3) No. Mr Paxton has initiated several unsuccessful legal proceedings in relation to this matter. A Supreme Court proceeding by Mr Paxton against the former CEO of the department and me remains ongoing. On legal advice, I will not be releasing documents relating to this matter that potentially involve waiver of legal professional privilege. (4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
On behalf of the minister for Fisheries, I thank the member for some notice of this question. (1)-(2) Yes. (3) No. Mr Paxton has initiated several unsuccessful legal proceedings in relation to this matter. A Supreme Court proceeding by Mr Paxton against the former CEO of the department and me remains ongoing. On legal advice, I will not be releasing documents relating to this matter that potentially involve waiver of legal professional privilege. (4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
(1)-(2) Yes. (3) No. Mr Paxton has initiated several unsuccessful legal proceedings in relation to this matter. A Supreme Court proceeding by Mr Paxton against the former CEO of the department and me remains ongoing. On legal advice, I will not be releasing documents relating to this matter that potentially involve waiver of legal professional privilege. (4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
(3) No. Mr Paxton has initiated several unsuccessful legal proceedings in relation to this matter. A Supreme Court proceeding by Mr Paxton against the former CEO of the department and me remains ongoing. On legal advice, I will not be releasing documents relating to this matter that potentially involve waiver of legal professional privilege. (4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
(4) Mr Paxton applied to transfer limited entry fishery licence 1921 to another party and the licence was subsequently cancelled. The outcome of the investigation was that Mr Paxton’s claim was dismissed—in particular, his claim to a lost right to fish in the fishery. I add by way of additional information that Mr Paxton initiated Supreme Court proceedings against subsequent licence holders. Mr Paxton’s legal proceedings were struck out.
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.