❓ A parliamentary question regarding a dispute between Mr. Tony Elwood and the Department of Environmental Protection about a quarry, the departure of the Minister's chief of staff, and the resignation of consultants. The Minister's initial response was deemed inappropriate and she was asked to withdraw it.
AnsweredQoN 1176Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the minister to my grievance of 10 April 2003 relating to Mr Tony Elwood and his dispute with the Department of Environmental Protection about the Pioneer Concrete (WA) quarry at Red Hill. (1) Can the minister confirm that she has recently sacked, or otherwise replaced, her chief of staff, Mr Peter Quinn? (2) Can the minister confirm that one reason for Mr Quinn’s departure is that the minister is not prepared to accept his advice to her on the response of the minister and her department to the matters raised in my grievance involving Mr Elwood? (3) Can the minister confirm that following her decision to appoint an independent consultant to investigate the substance of Mr Elwood’s complaints, two consultants have resigned after having been appointed, partly because they realise that the position of the minister and her department on this issue is untenable? Dr J.M. EDWARDS
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I am not sure what the member for Vasse has been taking; it is probably mushrooms in the forest. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: He is certainly exhibiting paranoid tendencies. In his grievance of 10 April, the member raised the case of Mr Elwood. I subsequently sent people to look at that area. I signalled to the member that I was unhappy with what the department was bringing back to me. I then asked the department to appoint an independent person to undertake a review. One of the reasons I asked the department to do that was that the report from two officers from my ministerial office who looked at the area was different from the information provided by the department. The department is continuing to argue - I need to be careful, because court action is occurring on this issue - that compliance is occurring and the ministerial conditions are being met. On the face of it, according to the member’s grievance that is not so, and according to the advice to me from people in my office, that is not so either. My understanding is that consultants were approached by the department, and the names of three were put forward. I do not know why they withdrew from the process, but it is certainly nothing to do with me or my office. We want this situation to be clarified, we want justice for the people concerned and we want the truth to be known, and I will work on this until that happens. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I think the comments of the minister reflect on the character of the member, and I ask her to withdraw. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I withdraw.
(1) Can the minister confirm that she has recently sacked, or otherwise replaced, her chief of staff, Mr Peter Quinn? (2) Can the minister confirm that one reason for Mr Quinn’s departure is that the minister is not prepared to accept his advice to her on the response of the minister and her department to the matters raised in my grievance involving Mr Elwood? (3) Can the minister confirm that following her decision to appoint an independent consultant to investigate the substance of Mr Elwood’s complaints, two consultants have resigned after having been appointed, partly because they realise that the position of the minister and her department on this issue is untenable? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) I am not sure what the member for Vasse has been taking; it is probably mushrooms in the forest. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: He is certainly exhibiting paranoid tendencies. In his grievance of 10 April, the member raised the case of Mr Elwood. I subsequently sent people to look at that area. I signalled to the member that I was unhappy with what the department was bringing back to me. I then asked the department to appoint an independent person to undertake a review. One of the reasons I asked the department to do that was that the report from two officers from my ministerial office who looked at the area was different from the information provided by the department. The department is continuing to argue - I need to be careful, because court action is occurring on this issue - that compliance is occurring and the ministerial conditions are being met. On the face of it, according to the member’s grievance that is not so, and according to the advice to me from people in my office, that is not so either. My understanding is that consultants were approached by the department, and the names of three were put forward. I do not know why they withdrew from the process, but it is certainly nothing to do with me or my office. We want this situation to be clarified, we want justice for the people concerned and we want the truth to be known, and I will work on this until that happens. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I think the comments of the minister reflect on the character of the member, and I ask her to withdraw. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I withdraw.
(2) Can the minister confirm that one reason for Mr Quinn’s departure is that the minister is not prepared to accept his advice to her on the response of the minister and her department to the matters raised in my grievance involving Mr Elwood? (3) Can the minister confirm that following her decision to appoint an independent consultant to investigate the substance of Mr Elwood’s complaints, two consultants have resigned after having been appointed, partly because they realise that the position of the minister and her department on this issue is untenable? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) I am not sure what the member for Vasse has been taking; it is probably mushrooms in the forest. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: He is certainly exhibiting paranoid tendencies. In his grievance of 10 April, the member raised the case of Mr Elwood. I subsequently sent people to look at that area. I signalled to the member that I was unhappy with what the department was bringing back to me. I then asked the department to appoint an independent person to undertake a review. One of the reasons I asked the department to do that was that the report from two officers from my ministerial office who looked at the area was different from the information provided by the department. The department is continuing to argue - I need to be careful, because court action is occurring on this issue - that compliance is occurring and the ministerial conditions are being met. On the face of it, according to the member’s grievance that is not so, and according to the advice to me from people in my office, that is not so either. My understanding is that consultants were approached by the department, and the names of three were put forward. I do not know why they withdrew from the process, but it is certainly nothing to do with me or my office. We want this situation to be clarified, we want justice for the people concerned and we want the truth to be known, and I will work on this until that happens. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I think the comments of the minister reflect on the character of the member, and I ask her to withdraw. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I withdraw.
(3) Can the minister confirm that following her decision to appoint an independent consultant to investigate the substance of Mr Elwood’s complaints, two consultants have resigned after having been appointed, partly because they realise that the position of the minister and her department on this issue is untenable? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) I am not sure what the member for Vasse has been taking; it is probably mushrooms in the forest. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: He is certainly exhibiting paranoid tendencies. In his grievance of 10 April, the member raised the case of Mr Elwood. I subsequently sent people to look at that area. I signalled to the member that I was unhappy with what the department was bringing back to me. I then asked the department to appoint an independent person to undertake a review. One of the reasons I asked the department to do that was that the report from two officers from my ministerial office who looked at the area was different from the information provided by the department. The department is continuing to argue - I need to be careful, because court action is occurring on this issue - that compliance is occurring and the ministerial conditions are being met. On the face of it, according to the member’s grievance that is not so, and according to the advice to me from people in my office, that is not so either. My understanding is that consultants were approached by the department, and the names of three were put forward. I do not know why they withdrew from the process, but it is certainly nothing to do with me or my office. We want this situation to be clarified, we want justice for the people concerned and we want the truth to be known, and I will work on this until that happens. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I think the comments of the minister reflect on the character of the member, and I ask her to withdraw. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I withdraw.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) I am not sure what the member for Vasse has been taking; it is probably mushrooms in the forest. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: He is certainly exhibiting paranoid tendencies. In his grievance of 10 April, the member raised the case of Mr Elwood. I subsequently sent people to look at that area. I signalled to the member that I was unhappy with what the department was bringing back to me. I then asked the department to appoint an independent person to undertake a review. One of the reasons I asked the department to do that was that the report from two officers from my ministerial office who looked at the area was different from the information provided by the department. The department is continuing to argue - I need to be careful, because court action is occurring on this issue - that compliance is occurring and the ministerial conditions are being met. On the face of it, according to the member’s grievance that is not so, and according to the advice to me from people in my office, that is not so either. My understanding is that consultants were approached by the department, and the names of three were put forward. I do not know why they withdrew from the process, but it is certainly nothing to do with me or my office. We want this situation to be clarified, we want justice for the people concerned and we want the truth to be known, and I will work on this until that happens. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I think the comments of the minister reflect on the character of the member, and I ask her to withdraw. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I withdraw.
(1)-(3) I am not sure what the member for Vasse has been taking; it is probably mushrooms in the forest. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: He is certainly exhibiting paranoid tendencies. In his grievance of 10 April, the member raised the case of Mr Elwood. I subsequently sent people to look at that area. I signalled to the member that I was unhappy with what the department was bringing back to me. I then asked the department to appoint an independent person to undertake a review. One of the reasons I asked the department to do that was that the report from two officers from my ministerial office who looked at the area was different from the information provided by the department. The department is continuing to argue - I need to be careful, because court action is occurring on this issue - that compliance is occurring and the ministerial conditions are being met. On the face of it, according to the member’s grievance that is not so, and according to the advice to me from people in my office, that is not so either. My understanding is that consultants were approached by the department, and the names of three were put forward. I do not know why they withdrew from the process, but it is certainly nothing to do with me or my office. We want this situation to be clarified, we want justice for the people concerned and we want the truth to be known, and I will work on this until that happens. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I think the comments of the minister reflect on the character of the member, and I ask her to withdraw. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I withdraw.
Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: He is certainly exhibiting paranoid tendencies. In his grievance of 10 April, the member raised the case of Mr Elwood. I subsequently sent people to look at that area. I signalled to the member that I was unhappy with what the department was bringing back to me. I then asked the department to appoint an independent person to undertake a review. One of the reasons I asked the department to do that was that the report from two officers from my ministerial office who looked at the area was different from the information provided by the department. The department is continuing to argue - I need to be careful, because court action is occurring on this issue - that compliance is occurring and the ministerial conditions are being met. On the face of it, according to the member’s grievance that is not so, and according to the advice to me from people in my office, that is not so either. My understanding is that consultants were approached by the department, and the names of three were put forward. I do not know why they withdrew from the process, but it is certainly nothing to do with me or my office. We want this situation to be clarified, we want justice for the people concerned and we want the truth to be known, and I will work on this until that happens. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I think the comments of the minister reflect on the character of the member, and I ask her to withdraw. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I withdraw.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: He is certainly exhibiting paranoid tendencies. In his grievance of 10 April, the member raised the case of Mr Elwood. I subsequently sent people to look at that area. I signalled to the member that I was unhappy with what the department was bringing back to me. I then asked the department to appoint an independent person to undertake a review. One of the reasons I asked the department to do that was that the report from two officers from my ministerial office who looked at the area was different from the information provided by the department. The department is continuing to argue - I need to be careful, because court action is occurring on this issue - that compliance is occurring and the ministerial conditions are being met. On the face of it, according to the member’s grievance that is not so, and according to the advice to me from people in my office, that is not so either. My understanding is that consultants were approached by the department, and the names of three were put forward. I do not know why they withdrew from the process, but it is certainly nothing to do with me or my office. We want this situation to be clarified, we want justice for the people concerned and we want the truth to be known, and I will work on this until that happens. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I think the comments of the minister reflect on the character of the member, and I ask her to withdraw. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I withdraw.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I withdraw.
(1) Can the minister confirm that she has recently sacked, or otherwise replaced, her chief of staff, Mr Peter Quinn? (2) Can the minister confirm that one reason for Mr Quinn’s departure is that the minister is not prepared to accept his advice to her on the response of the minister and her department to the matters raised in my grievance involving Mr Elwood? (3) Can the minister confirm that following her decision to appoint an independent consultant to investigate the substance of Mr Elwood’s complaints, two consultants have resigned after having been appointed, partly because they realise that the position of the minister and her department on this issue is untenable? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) I am not sure what the member for Vasse has been taking; it is probably mushrooms in the forest. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: He is certainly exhibiting paranoid tendencies. In his grievance of 10 April, the member raised the case of Mr Elwood. I subsequently sent people to look at that area. I signalled to the member that I was unhappy with what the department was bringing back to me. I then asked the department to appoint an independent person to undertake a review. One of the reasons I asked the department to do that was that the report from two officers from my ministerial office who looked at the area was different from the information provided by the department. The department is continuing to argue - I need to be careful, because court action is occurring on this issue - that compliance is occurring and the ministerial conditions are being met. On the face of it, according to the member’s grievance that is not so, and according to the advice to me from people in my office, that is not so either. My understanding is that consultants were approached by the department, and the names of three were put forward. I do not know why they withdrew from the process, but it is certainly nothing to do with me or my office. We want this situation to be clarified, we want justice for the people concerned and we want the truth to be known, and I will work on this until that happens. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I think the comments of the minister reflect on the character of the member, and I ask her to withdraw. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I withdraw.
(2) Can the minister confirm that one reason for Mr Quinn’s departure is that the minister is not prepared to accept his advice to her on the response of the minister and her department to the matters raised in my grievance involving Mr Elwood? (3) Can the minister confirm that following her decision to appoint an independent consultant to investigate the substance of Mr Elwood’s complaints, two consultants have resigned after having been appointed, partly because they realise that the position of the minister and her department on this issue is untenable? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) I am not sure what the member for Vasse has been taking; it is probably mushrooms in the forest. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: He is certainly exhibiting paranoid tendencies. In his grievance of 10 April, the member raised the case of Mr Elwood. I subsequently sent people to look at that area. I signalled to the member that I was unhappy with what the department was bringing back to me. I then asked the department to appoint an independent person to undertake a review. One of the reasons I asked the department to do that was that the report from two officers from my ministerial office who looked at the area was different from the information provided by the department. The department is continuing to argue - I need to be careful, because court action is occurring on this issue - that compliance is occurring and the ministerial conditions are being met. On the face of it, according to the member’s grievance that is not so, and according to the advice to me from people in my office, that is not so either. My understanding is that consultants were approached by the department, and the names of three were put forward. I do not know why they withdrew from the process, but it is certainly nothing to do with me or my office. We want this situation to be clarified, we want justice for the people concerned and we want the truth to be known, and I will work on this until that happens. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I think the comments of the minister reflect on the character of the member, and I ask her to withdraw. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I withdraw.
(3) Can the minister confirm that following her decision to appoint an independent consultant to investigate the substance of Mr Elwood’s complaints, two consultants have resigned after having been appointed, partly because they realise that the position of the minister and her department on this issue is untenable? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) I am not sure what the member for Vasse has been taking; it is probably mushrooms in the forest. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: He is certainly exhibiting paranoid tendencies. In his grievance of 10 April, the member raised the case of Mr Elwood. I subsequently sent people to look at that area. I signalled to the member that I was unhappy with what the department was bringing back to me. I then asked the department to appoint an independent person to undertake a review. One of the reasons I asked the department to do that was that the report from two officers from my ministerial office who looked at the area was different from the information provided by the department. The department is continuing to argue - I need to be careful, because court action is occurring on this issue - that compliance is occurring and the ministerial conditions are being met. On the face of it, according to the member’s grievance that is not so, and according to the advice to me from people in my office, that is not so either. My understanding is that consultants were approached by the department, and the names of three were put forward. I do not know why they withdrew from the process, but it is certainly nothing to do with me or my office. We want this situation to be clarified, we want justice for the people concerned and we want the truth to be known, and I will work on this until that happens. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I think the comments of the minister reflect on the character of the member, and I ask her to withdraw. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I withdraw.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) I am not sure what the member for Vasse has been taking; it is probably mushrooms in the forest. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: He is certainly exhibiting paranoid tendencies. In his grievance of 10 April, the member raised the case of Mr Elwood. I subsequently sent people to look at that area. I signalled to the member that I was unhappy with what the department was bringing back to me. I then asked the department to appoint an independent person to undertake a review. One of the reasons I asked the department to do that was that the report from two officers from my ministerial office who looked at the area was different from the information provided by the department. The department is continuing to argue - I need to be careful, because court action is occurring on this issue - that compliance is occurring and the ministerial conditions are being met. On the face of it, according to the member’s grievance that is not so, and according to the advice to me from people in my office, that is not so either. My understanding is that consultants were approached by the department, and the names of three were put forward. I do not know why they withdrew from the process, but it is certainly nothing to do with me or my office. We want this situation to be clarified, we want justice for the people concerned and we want the truth to be known, and I will work on this until that happens. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I think the comments of the minister reflect on the character of the member, and I ask her to withdraw. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I withdraw.
(1)-(3) I am not sure what the member for Vasse has been taking; it is probably mushrooms in the forest. Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: He is certainly exhibiting paranoid tendencies. In his grievance of 10 April, the member raised the case of Mr Elwood. I subsequently sent people to look at that area. I signalled to the member that I was unhappy with what the department was bringing back to me. I then asked the department to appoint an independent person to undertake a review. One of the reasons I asked the department to do that was that the report from two officers from my ministerial office who looked at the area was different from the information provided by the department. The department is continuing to argue - I need to be careful, because court action is occurring on this issue - that compliance is occurring and the ministerial conditions are being met. On the face of it, according to the member’s grievance that is not so, and according to the advice to me from people in my office, that is not so either. My understanding is that consultants were approached by the department, and the names of three were put forward. I do not know why they withdrew from the process, but it is certainly nothing to do with me or my office. We want this situation to be clarified, we want justice for the people concerned and we want the truth to be known, and I will work on this until that happens. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I think the comments of the minister reflect on the character of the member, and I ask her to withdraw. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I withdraw.
Several members interjected. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: He is certainly exhibiting paranoid tendencies. In his grievance of 10 April, the member raised the case of Mr Elwood. I subsequently sent people to look at that area. I signalled to the member that I was unhappy with what the department was bringing back to me. I then asked the department to appoint an independent person to undertake a review. One of the reasons I asked the department to do that was that the report from two officers from my ministerial office who looked at the area was different from the information provided by the department. The department is continuing to argue - I need to be careful, because court action is occurring on this issue - that compliance is occurring and the ministerial conditions are being met. On the face of it, according to the member’s grievance that is not so, and according to the advice to me from people in my office, that is not so either. My understanding is that consultants were approached by the department, and the names of three were put forward. I do not know why they withdrew from the process, but it is certainly nothing to do with me or my office. We want this situation to be clarified, we want justice for the people concerned and we want the truth to be known, and I will work on this until that happens. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I think the comments of the minister reflect on the character of the member, and I ask her to withdraw. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I withdraw.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: He is certainly exhibiting paranoid tendencies. In his grievance of 10 April, the member raised the case of Mr Elwood. I subsequently sent people to look at that area. I signalled to the member that I was unhappy with what the department was bringing back to me. I then asked the department to appoint an independent person to undertake a review. One of the reasons I asked the department to do that was that the report from two officers from my ministerial office who looked at the area was different from the information provided by the department. The department is continuing to argue - I need to be careful, because court action is occurring on this issue - that compliance is occurring and the ministerial conditions are being met. On the face of it, according to the member’s grievance that is not so, and according to the advice to me from people in my office, that is not so either. My understanding is that consultants were approached by the department, and the names of three were put forward. I do not know why they withdrew from the process, but it is certainly nothing to do with me or my office. We want this situation to be clarified, we want justice for the people concerned and we want the truth to be known, and I will work on this until that happens. Withdrawal of Remark The SPEAKER: Order! I think the comments of the minister reflect on the character of the member, and I ask her to withdraw. Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I withdraw.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS: I withdraw.
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.