Hon. George Cash asks the Attorney General about actions taken in 2002 and 2003. The response indicates that some agencies (Office of the Information Commissioner, Law Reform Commission) did not undertake the specified actions, while others (Department of Justice, Equal Opportunity Commission, Legal Aid WA, State Solicitor's Office) did, but providing details would be an unreasonable use of resources and potentially prejudice ongoing matters.

AnsweredQoN 22Legislative Council
Asked
29 March 2005
Portfolio
Attorney General

QuestionView source ↗

(b) 2002; or (c) 2003?
(c) 2003?

AnswerView source ↗

Answered
3 May 2005
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Attorney General
Response time
35 days
OFFICE OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER LAW REFORM COMMISSION (1a-c)No. (2)Not applicable. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION LEGAL AID WA STATE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE (1 a-c)Yes. (2)No, it would represent an unreasonable redirection of resources to collate and summarise all of these actions and, indeed, in many instances legal advice would have to be sought as to whether a 'summary' of the case could be published without prejudicing an ongoing matter.
LAW REFORM COMMISSION (1a-c)No. (2)Not applicable. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION LEGAL AID WA STATE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE (1 a-c)Yes. (2)No, it would represent an unreasonable redirection of resources to collate and summarise all of these actions and, indeed, in many instances legal advice would have to be sought as to whether a 'summary' of the case could be published without prejudicing an ongoing matter.
(1a-c)No. (2)Not applicable. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION LEGAL AID WA STATE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE (1 a-c)Yes. (2)No, it would represent an unreasonable redirection of resources to collate and summarise all of these actions and, indeed, in many instances legal advice would have to be sought as to whether a 'summary' of the case could be published without prejudicing an ongoing matter.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION LEGAL AID WA STATE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE (1 a-c)Yes. (2)No, it would represent an unreasonable redirection of resources to collate and summarise all of these actions and, indeed, in many instances legal advice would have to be sought as to whether a 'summary' of the case could be published without prejudicing an ongoing matter.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION LEGAL AID WA STATE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE (1 a-c)Yes. (2)No, it would represent an unreasonable redirection of resources to collate and summarise all of these actions and, indeed, in many instances legal advice would have to be sought as to whether a 'summary' of the case could be published without prejudicing an ongoing matter.
LEGAL AID WA STATE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE (1 a-c)Yes. (2)No, it would represent an unreasonable redirection of resources to collate and summarise all of these actions and, indeed, in many instances legal advice would have to be sought as to whether a 'summary' of the case could be published without prejudicing an ongoing matter.
STATE SOLICITOR'S OFFICE (1 a-c)Yes. (2)No, it would represent an unreasonable redirection of resources to collate and summarise all of these actions and, indeed, in many instances legal advice would have to be sought as to whether a 'summary' of the case could be published without prejudicing an ongoing matter.
(1 a-c)Yes. (2)No, it would represent an unreasonable redirection of resources to collate and summarise all of these actions and, indeed, in many instances legal advice would have to be sought as to whether a 'summary' of the case could be published without prejudicing an ongoing matter.

Explore WA Government Data

Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.

Explore more