House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-05-22 Daily Xml

Contents

Legislative Council President

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:24): My question is to the Attorney-General: as the state's most senior legal officer with powers to investigate corruption at all levels and, given that the letters patent are on their way, what action is the Attorney now going to take to investigate the alleged corruption against the President of the other place?

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (14:25): Can we just take a moment to reflect on the actual history of this particular matter. In about 2005 I think or thereabouts, the then honourable—and I am not trying to say that he is not honourable now if you know what I mean—but the then Mr Redford—

An honourable member: He is still Mr Redford.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: He is still Mr Redford, indeed, he is probably the Hon. Mr Redford because he was here for a while. So, the Hon. Mr Redford raised certain matters of course under the cloak of privilege concerning the Hon. Russell Wortley, who at that stage was merely Russell Wortley—

An honourable member: As he then was.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As he then was, indeed, and as I understand it that went absolutely nowhere. A little bit later—and I may or may not be correct about this—I think the Hon. Mr Lucas might have on occasions said things, and certainly Mr Ridgway, I think in—was it 2011—

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: I think so.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —or thereabouts, the Hon. Mr Ridgway in another place basically regurgitated, as I understand it, the original propositions advanced by Mr Redford. So there is nothing new or unique about this. To add a little bit more of a frisson or colour to this thing: during that period of nearly 20 years, those who have decided that they wanted to advance this proposition in places other than in this room and in one another few hundred metres up the road have wound up in court—and very unsuccessfully.

So, it would appear that nobody—other than those people who stand in a place covered by parliamentary privilege—is sufficiently confident of their facts to say anything publicly about the matter. It also appears to be the case that they are not even sufficiently confident to have advanced it in circumstances of qualified privilege, for example, having gone to the police and made a bona fide and legitimate or honestly-held complaint about facts known to them. No, none of that.

A little while ago, this place passed a piece of legislation which means that every person in this place is a public officer for the purposes of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act—every one of us as a member of parliament. I would remind those who reckon they have got something to say and have got some facts at their disposal that there are mandatory reporting elements contained within those provisions. So if I am being asked whether I have any information which I should be reporting to anybody, the answer is, 'No, I do not.' Nobody has provided me with any information at all. The only thing I know of is a couple of slurs in the parliament under the protection of privilege. If any member of the opposition, or anybody else for that matter, has any facts at all that they wish to advance—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The leader is called to order.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —I would encourage them please—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The leader is warned.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —to go to the relevant authorities and disgorge that information, because they have something that I do not. But I would make the point: do it that way, do it properly or risk a repetition of the unhappy legal consequences of those who have chosen a different path.