Ministerial Code of Conduct

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:07): Were any notes of that meeting taken?

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Premier) (14:07): For Godsakes. This is a pathetic line of question.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There could not be a more public performance of every single element of this equation. At 9am the report was communicated to my office. I read it over the period of time between that time and the time when the minister came into my office. I had a meeting which went for something of the order of an hour where we discussed all of the implications of that report.

I made it clear to him that the conduct, that the language that he used, was inappropriate. He acknowledged that. We discussed in detail why the behaviour was inappropriate. I outlined those reasons in the house. The minister then went out publicly and acknowledged every element of why the behaviour was inappropriate, so it demonstrated that he understood that.

This sits at the heart of proper disciplinary processes when one is raising questions of behaviour and performance in the context of an environment where a superior is seeking to raise matters and have changed conduct. It is precisely the way in which these matters should be dealt with. To actually start parsing and talking about whether something is recorded in writing, make some process note, when we are actually talking here about something which was dealt with entirely appropriately and in detail, in full public gaze, just trivialises the whole process.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I call to order the members for Taylor, Chaffey, Newland, Stuart, Hartley and the leader, and I warn for the first time the members for Newland and Wright.