❓ A WA parliamentary question probes the Department of Industry and Resources' handling of concerns raised by Mr. S. Kean regarding potential breaches of the Mining Act 1978, specifically questioning the Director General's response and investigation into the matter. The answer is evasive and repetitive.
AnsweredQoN 1379Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to a letter dated September 4 2003 signed by Mr Jim Limerick, Director General Department of Industry and Resources addressed to Mr S. Kean -
(1) Did Mr Bill Phillips, Mr Bill Biggs or some other officer within the department prepare the letter dated September 4 2003 before it was signed by the Director General?
(2) If yes to (1), what was the name(s) and the positions within the department who helped prepare this letter?
(3) Can the Minister explain how did the Director General research all of the matters raised in Mr Kean’s letters dated August 19 2003, May 6 2003, June 24 2003 and July 25 2003 to be able to factually and accurately justify all the statements made in the letter dated September 4 2003?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain why the Director General selectively focussed on ‘evidence’ on Dept of Industry and Resources files by stating ‘Your letter of 6 May 2003 states that there is exhaustive evidence on our departmental files that would support your assertions. This is simply not the case and this issue has been canvassed before on many occasions,’ disregarding and evading all of the concerns that Mr Kean clearly stated in part in his letters dated May 6 2003 and March 13 2003 being -
(a) ‘as previously indicated there is extensive evidence, in written, verbal and visual form that will demonstrate our concerns in a compelling way. There is also exhaustive evidence on your departmental files that would support our assertions. Some of this evidence has already been observed by Mr Tony Cooke, currently undertaking a review of issues in the Kalgoorlie region to which he has referred to you in correspondence dated March 25 2003; and
(b) ‘among the many examples including documented examples, I have further supporting evidence including visual evidence that I respectfully suggests needs to be viewed on site in order to provide a real time perspective to the matters raised, This approach will also ensure that the reports, documents, correspondence etc, can be tracked and verified… Because of the voluminous amount of evidence, it needs to be documented, recorded and referenced by your department in order to progress the issues to a successful conclusion.’ while intentionally negating/avoiding the departments obligations and responsibilities to investigate current breaches of the
Mining Act 1978
despite having written requests from Mr S. Kean to investigate evidence of this onsite in Kalgoorlie with the State Mining Engineer and Mr Tony Cooke present?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
(1) Did Mr Bill Phillips, Mr Bill Biggs or some other officer within the department prepare the letter dated September 4 2003 before it was signed by the Director General?
(2) If yes to (1), what was the name(s) and the positions within the department who helped prepare this letter?
(3) Can the Minister explain how did the Director General research all of the matters raised in Mr Kean’s letters dated August 19 2003, May 6 2003, June 24 2003 and July 25 2003 to be able to factually and accurately justify all the statements made in the letter dated September 4 2003?
(4) If no to (3), why not?
(5) Can the Minister explain why the Director General selectively focussed on ‘evidence’ on Dept of Industry and Resources files by stating ‘Your letter of 6 May 2003 states that there is exhaustive evidence on our departmental files that would support your assertions. This is simply not the case and this issue has been canvassed before on many occasions,’ disregarding and evading all of the concerns that Mr Kean clearly stated in part in his letters dated May 6 2003 and March 13 2003 being -
(a) ‘as previously indicated there is extensive evidence, in written, verbal and visual form that will demonstrate our concerns in a compelling way. There is also exhaustive evidence on your departmental files that would support our assertions. Some of this evidence has already been observed by Mr Tony Cooke, currently undertaking a review of issues in the Kalgoorlie region to which he has referred to you in correspondence dated March 25 2003; and
(b) ‘among the many examples including documented examples, I have further supporting evidence including visual evidence that I respectfully suggests needs to be viewed on site in order to provide a real time perspective to the matters raised, This approach will also ensure that the reports, documents, correspondence etc, can be tracked and verified… Because of the voluminous amount of evidence, it needs to be documented, recorded and referenced by your department in order to progress the issues to a successful conclusion.’ while intentionally negating/avoiding the departments obligations and responsibilities to investigate current breaches of the
Mining Act 1978
despite having written requests from Mr S. Kean to investigate evidence of this onsite in Kalgoorlie with the State Mining Engineer and Mr Tony Cooke present?
(6) If no to (5), why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
2 December 2003
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for State Development
Response time
39 days
(b) ‘among the many examples including documented examples, I have further supporting evidence including visual evidence that I respectfully suggests needs to be viewed on site in order to provide a real time perspective to the matters raised, This approach will also ensure that the reports, documents, correspondence etc, can be tracked and verified… Because of the voluminous amount of evidence, it needs to be documented, recorded and referenced by your department in order to progress the issues to a successful conclusion.’ while intentionally negating/avoiding the departments obligations and responsibilities to investigate current breaches of the Mining Act 1978 despite having written requests from Mr S. Kean to investigate evidence of this onsite in Kalgoorlie with the State Mining Engineer and Mr Tony Cooke present?
1. Yes 2. The letter you refer to was prepared by staff of the department on behalf of the Director General. The relevance of individual officers being identified is unclear from this question. 3. The Director Generals response was based on information held on departmental files. 4. N/A 5. The evidence available to the Director General and his staff is that which has been presented to the department by all interested parties and is held on departmental files. 6. N/A
2. The letter you refer to was prepared by staff of the department on behalf of the Director General. The relevance of individual officers being identified is unclear from this question. 3. The Director Generals response was based on information held on departmental files. 4. N/A 5. The evidence available to the Director General and his staff is that which has been presented to the department by all interested parties and is held on departmental files. 6. N/A
3. The Director Generals response was based on information held on departmental files. 4. N/A 5. The evidence available to the Director General and his staff is that which has been presented to the department by all interested parties and is held on departmental files. 6. N/A
4. N/A 5. The evidence available to the Director General and his staff is that which has been presented to the department by all interested parties and is held on departmental files. 6. N/A
5. The evidence available to the Director General and his staff is that which has been presented to the department by all interested parties and is held on departmental files. 6. N/A
6. N/A
1. Yes 2. The letter you refer to was prepared by staff of the department on behalf of the Director General. The relevance of individual officers being identified is unclear from this question. 3. The Director Generals response was based on information held on departmental files. 4. N/A 5. The evidence available to the Director General and his staff is that which has been presented to the department by all interested parties and is held on departmental files. 6. N/A
2. The letter you refer to was prepared by staff of the department on behalf of the Director General. The relevance of individual officers being identified is unclear from this question. 3. The Director Generals response was based on information held on departmental files. 4. N/A 5. The evidence available to the Director General and his staff is that which has been presented to the department by all interested parties and is held on departmental files. 6. N/A
3. The Director Generals response was based on information held on departmental files. 4. N/A 5. The evidence available to the Director General and his staff is that which has been presented to the department by all interested parties and is held on departmental files. 6. N/A
4. N/A 5. The evidence available to the Director General and his staff is that which has been presented to the department by all interested parties and is held on departmental files. 6. N/A
5. The evidence available to the Director General and his staff is that which has been presented to the department by all interested parties and is held on departmental files. 6. N/A
6. N/A
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.