Email’s

Hansard — Member’s Duplicate
[Council — Wednesday, 18 September 2024]
Hon COLIN de GRUSSA

Uncorrected Proof — Not to be Quoted

Suggested corrections must be returned by 4.00 pm on the day after your speech to meet publishing deadlines.

Hansard@parliament.wa.gov.au

[1]

<021> P/2

MARK PAXTON — ALLEGATIONS

Hon COLIN de GRUSSA to the parliamentary secretary representing the Minister for Fisheries:
I refer to allegations supplied to the minister by a person known as Mark Paxton relating to, amongst others,
criminal negligence, abuse of power, contempt of Parliament and fraud.
(1) Have the allegations made by Mr Paxton been investigated in accordance with all statutory requirements?
(2) If yes to (1), what was the outcome of those investigations?
(3) If no to (1), why not?
Hon KYLE McGINN replied:
I thank the member for some notice of the question. The following answer has been provided by the Minister for
Fisheries.
(1)–(3) In correspondence received by my office, Mark Paxton made several allegations of impropriety relating
to his dealings with the then Department of Fisheries. I was advised that the matters outlined in the
correspondence had already been subject to significant consideration by preceding ministers, and that Mr
Paxton unsuccessfully sought resolution through proceedings before the Supreme Court of Western
Australia and the State Administrative Tribunal.

E MAIL 11.9.24 maritimerightsorgwa@gmail.com to Shayne.Flanagan@mp.wa.gov.au

Thankyou Shayne for returning my calls, 9.9.24 and 10.9.24,and reiterating Mr De Grussa’s
willingness to prosecute my argument ,and his still recognising the need for a Parliamentary inquiry into the Fisheries Department.
And thankyou for the opportunity for me to write a Question to be put to the Minister of Fisheries
in Parliament ,in relation to my lost constitutional right to fish and the Department’s subsequent
actions and inactions .
QUESTION ;
As Minister it is incumbent on you to assess and report allegations of Misconduct ,as per Corruption
Crime and Misconduct Act 2003. Sections 28 and 29.
Given allegations of Abuse of Power,Criminal negligence,Failure of Duty of Care,Breach of Public
Sector code of ethics,perverting the course of Justice,Denying Natural Justice,Perverting the
Subsidary Legislation Procedure,Misleading the Standing Committee of Public
Administration,Perverting a Department Inquiry, Contempt of Parliament and Fraud,supplied to you, with evidence,by Mark Paxton ,will you now have a meeting with Mark Paxton,to resolve this issue and assess the facts ,in light of you Legislated obligation.

E MAIL 18.9.24 maritimerightsorgwa@gmail.com to ShayneFlanagan@mp.wa.gov.au

Further to e mail 13.9.24 re :Question in Parliament to the Minister of Fisheries.
Thankyou again Shayne, the Question I sent you , will most probably be answered with the same
response by the Minister ,no further action or meeting , as this matter has been given thorough
consideration by previous Ministers ,in his e mail to me 24.4.23.
Nevertheless it will enlighten the Minister to Mr De Grussa’s knowledge of criminal negligence and corruption within the Fisheries Department, the Minister having received evidence of such, and his Legislated obligations as per CCM Act 2003.
If the Question included a request for the Internal investigation to be tabled ,an investigation, the
parameters of which were the allegations made by me in writing to Peter Rogers
18.2.2004,response 23.2.2004 recognising allegations and investigation by Rogers.
The Investigation required the establishment of several facts.
Those facts to be established-Who held contolled or had an interest in the Licence the day it was
transferred, that is OWNERSHIP.
-Was the licencing system adequate to protect beneficial ownership ?
NB:Mace Hoskins case District Court Criminal Ger. 10 1996 LFBL holder ‘considered’ but not
beneficial owner found guilty of 4 counts of Fraud.Establishing the system was inadequate.

Was a Fraud committed ?
Did Peter Rogers’ actions and inactions constitute Criminal
Negligence ?

NB: The Questions of Departmental Failure of Duty of Care and Fraud can only be answered by the
Supreme Court,The FRMA Section 155 Case Stated would allow the Department to request the
Supreme Court to give an opinion on both.
My exemption allowing me to fish was granted in December 2003,with Kim Chance stating in
writing 22.12.03 “if appropriate I will amend the AIMWTF management plan 1993 to provide you
with the opportunity to apply for the grant of a new licence’
Rogers investigation was instigated 2 months after the Minister approved my exemption,he had to
take control of the situation.
The renewed exemption allowing me to fish 2005 was issued to stay in force till the completion of
Rogers’ investigation.
Rogers waited 20 months till Jon Ford became Fisheries Minister and promptly informed Jon Ford
not to renew my Exemption,the investigation is completed, apparently with only one outcome ,any litigation against the Department is Statute{time} barred,no mention of any of the accepted
parameters.
When I met Jon Ford and explained to him the full story his reaction, ignoring Rogers’ advice that the matter was concluded,was that he would make good on Kim Chance’s assurance and create through Subsidary Legislation a VACANT LICENCE.
Following the Amendments published in the Government Gazette 11.11.2005, not including a
VACANT LICENCE I had Jon Ford Questioned in Parliament.

Share this: