❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding concerns about the Cooke Review, specifically addressing the investigation process, handling of evidence, and the Minister's role. The Minister's responses are largely evasive and deflect responsibility.
AnsweredQoN 1654Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the Cooke Review and letters written by various people to the Minister with serious concerns about the Cooke Review prior to the Minister announcing the Final Report would be completed on the 15 January 2003 -
(1) Can the Minister state how many people have written to him with serious concerns about the Cooke Review not investigating their concerns or issues prior to the 10 December 2003?
(2) If no to (1) why not?
(3) Has various people expressed serious concerns to the Minister that the way that evidence would be collected and investigated including the peoples concerns has not been adhered to as part of the agreed review process?
(4) If yes to (3) what specifically has the Minister done to rectify these matters?
(5) If no to (3) what specific concerns have been raised by all the people who have written to the Minister?
(6) Is it correct that a letter dated 26 November 2003 was sent addressed to the Minister specifically stating ‘We also understand that once you have received the final report, you propose to make it available for public comment to allow any member of the community, aggrieved by any aspects or the contents of the report, to make submissions to you as the Minister. Fundamentally, this seems to undermine any of the work that Tony Cooke and the reviews executive officers, particularly Ms Lisa Johnson, have partly committed to the review. It seems an extraordinary position to adopt because as the Minister you do not, and will not have all the intimate knowledge that has been acquired by Mr Cooke and Ms Johnson during the course of their investigations, notwithstanding that to date Ms Johnson/Mr Cooke have done a lot of hard work, on a limited number of matters, to be able to clearly discern and identify the issues where people believe they have been aggrieved. We respectfully point out, that given the long history of these matters spanning in excess of 11 years, the only person capable of the extent of clearly understanding the matters to determine whether a person has been aggrieved or not will be the reviewer himself, otherwise you, the Minister should have conducted the review personally yourself, so that you have all the intimate knowledge of these matters and issues that has been gained by the reviewer and Ms Johnson. Due to the long history of these issues with the department providing you with so called unbiased impartial advice on these matters and the subsequent evidence put to Mr Cooke to the contrary we certainly have no faith in the departments ability to put to you an unbiased response to the Cooke Report. Aspects of the Departments modus operandi are the direct cause of numerous problems in the mining industry. This is the subject of peoples concerns whereby unjust and unnecessary harm is occurring, and it needs to be rectified?’
(7) If no to (6) will the Minister table the letter dated 26 November 2003?
(8) Can the Minister explain why he did not conduct the review himself with his ministerial staff to be in a fully informed position on all of the matters that Mr Cooke has only partly and briefly investigated?
(9) If no to (8) why not?
(1) Can the Minister state how many people have written to him with serious concerns about the Cooke Review not investigating their concerns or issues prior to the 10 December 2003?
(2) If no to (1) why not?
(3) Has various people expressed serious concerns to the Minister that the way that evidence would be collected and investigated including the peoples concerns has not been adhered to as part of the agreed review process?
(4) If yes to (3) what specifically has the Minister done to rectify these matters?
(5) If no to (3) what specific concerns have been raised by all the people who have written to the Minister?
(6) Is it correct that a letter dated 26 November 2003 was sent addressed to the Minister specifically stating ‘We also understand that once you have received the final report, you propose to make it available for public comment to allow any member of the community, aggrieved by any aspects or the contents of the report, to make submissions to you as the Minister. Fundamentally, this seems to undermine any of the work that Tony Cooke and the reviews executive officers, particularly Ms Lisa Johnson, have partly committed to the review. It seems an extraordinary position to adopt because as the Minister you do not, and will not have all the intimate knowledge that has been acquired by Mr Cooke and Ms Johnson during the course of their investigations, notwithstanding that to date Ms Johnson/Mr Cooke have done a lot of hard work, on a limited number of matters, to be able to clearly discern and identify the issues where people believe they have been aggrieved. We respectfully point out, that given the long history of these matters spanning in excess of 11 years, the only person capable of the extent of clearly understanding the matters to determine whether a person has been aggrieved or not will be the reviewer himself, otherwise you, the Minister should have conducted the review personally yourself, so that you have all the intimate knowledge of these matters and issues that has been gained by the reviewer and Ms Johnson. Due to the long history of these issues with the department providing you with so called unbiased impartial advice on these matters and the subsequent evidence put to Mr Cooke to the contrary we certainly have no faith in the departments ability to put to you an unbiased response to the Cooke Report. Aspects of the Departments modus operandi are the direct cause of numerous problems in the mining industry. This is the subject of peoples concerns whereby unjust and unnecessary harm is occurring, and it needs to be rectified?’
(7) If no to (6) will the Minister table the letter dated 26 November 2003?
(8) Can the Minister explain why he did not conduct the review himself with his ministerial staff to be in a fully informed position on all of the matters that Mr Cooke has only partly and briefly investigated?
(9) If no to (8) why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
30 March 2004
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
109 days
(1) A number of people have raised concerns about the Cooke Review. Whether they are all serious is in the eye of the complainant. (2) Not applicable. (3) I have no idea what this question means. (4) Not applicable. (5) A copy of the letters received from Williamstown residents can be made available to the Hon Member on request. (6) If the Hon member can identify who sent the letter he is referring to, it would be helpful. (7) N/A. (8) The Cooke Review was established to deal with those matters contained in the terms of reference that remained the subject of public policy debate and argument. (9) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) I have no idea what this question means. (4) Not applicable. (5) A copy of the letters received from Williamstown residents can be made available to the Hon Member on request. (6) If the Hon member can identify who sent the letter he is referring to, it would be helpful. (7) N/A. (8) The Cooke Review was established to deal with those matters contained in the terms of reference that remained the subject of public policy debate and argument. (9) Not applicable.
(3) I have no idea what this question means. (4) Not applicable. (5) A copy of the letters received from Williamstown residents can be made available to the Hon Member on request. (6) If the Hon member can identify who sent the letter he is referring to, it would be helpful. (7) N/A. (8) The Cooke Review was established to deal with those matters contained in the terms of reference that remained the subject of public policy debate and argument. (9) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) A copy of the letters received from Williamstown residents can be made available to the Hon Member on request. (6) If the Hon member can identify who sent the letter he is referring to, it would be helpful. (7) N/A. (8) The Cooke Review was established to deal with those matters contained in the terms of reference that remained the subject of public policy debate and argument. (9) Not applicable.
(5) A copy of the letters received from Williamstown residents can be made available to the Hon Member on request. (6) If the Hon member can identify who sent the letter he is referring to, it would be helpful. (7) N/A. (8) The Cooke Review was established to deal with those matters contained in the terms of reference that remained the subject of public policy debate and argument. (9) Not applicable.
(6) If the Hon member can identify who sent the letter he is referring to, it would be helpful. (7) N/A. (8) The Cooke Review was established to deal with those matters contained in the terms of reference that remained the subject of public policy debate and argument. (9) Not applicable.
(7) N/A. (8) The Cooke Review was established to deal with those matters contained in the terms of reference that remained the subject of public policy debate and argument. (9) Not applicable.
(8) The Cooke Review was established to deal with those matters contained in the terms of reference that remained the subject of public policy debate and argument. (9) Not applicable.
(9) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable. (3) I have no idea what this question means. (4) Not applicable. (5) A copy of the letters received from Williamstown residents can be made available to the Hon Member on request. (6) If the Hon member can identify who sent the letter he is referring to, it would be helpful. (7) N/A. (8) The Cooke Review was established to deal with those matters contained in the terms of reference that remained the subject of public policy debate and argument. (9) Not applicable.
(3) I have no idea what this question means. (4) Not applicable. (5) A copy of the letters received from Williamstown residents can be made available to the Hon Member on request. (6) If the Hon member can identify who sent the letter he is referring to, it would be helpful. (7) N/A. (8) The Cooke Review was established to deal with those matters contained in the terms of reference that remained the subject of public policy debate and argument. (9) Not applicable.
(4) Not applicable. (5) A copy of the letters received from Williamstown residents can be made available to the Hon Member on request. (6) If the Hon member can identify who sent the letter he is referring to, it would be helpful. (7) N/A. (8) The Cooke Review was established to deal with those matters contained in the terms of reference that remained the subject of public policy debate and argument. (9) Not applicable.
(5) A copy of the letters received from Williamstown residents can be made available to the Hon Member on request. (6) If the Hon member can identify who sent the letter he is referring to, it would be helpful. (7) N/A. (8) The Cooke Review was established to deal with those matters contained in the terms of reference that remained the subject of public policy debate and argument. (9) Not applicable.
(6) If the Hon member can identify who sent the letter he is referring to, it would be helpful. (7) N/A. (8) The Cooke Review was established to deal with those matters contained in the terms of reference that remained the subject of public policy debate and argument. (9) Not applicable.
(7) N/A. (8) The Cooke Review was established to deal with those matters contained in the terms of reference that remained the subject of public policy debate and argument. (9) Not applicable.
(8) The Cooke Review was established to deal with those matters contained in the terms of reference that remained the subject of public policy debate and argument. (9) Not applicable.
(9) Not applicable.
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.