❓ Hon Anthony Fels asks the Attorney General about a complaint regarding alleged conflict of interest involving Supreme Court Judges, Muirwil Nominees Pty Ltd, and the MWN Superannuation Trust. The Attorney General confirms receipt of the complaint, sought advice, and determined no investigation was warranted.
AnsweredQoN 3243Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Has the Attorney General ever received a complaint regarding allegations of a conflict of interest involving three Supreme Court Judges, Muirwil Nominees Pty Ltd and the MWN Superannuation Trust?
(2) What action did the Attorney General or his Department take to ascertain the nature of this allegation?
(3) Did the Attorney General or his Department investigate the matter if so -
(a) who carried out the investigation;
(b) what was the terms of the investigation; and
(c) will the Attorney General table a copy of the report into the matter?
(4) If the Attorney General or his Department has not made any inquiries into this complaint can he provide reasons for not doing so?
(2) What action did the Attorney General or his Department take to ascertain the nature of this allegation?
(3) Did the Attorney General or his Department investigate the matter if so -
(a) who carried out the investigation;
(b) what was the terms of the investigation; and
(c) will the Attorney General table a copy of the report into the matter?
(4) If the Attorney General or his Department has not made any inquiries into this complaint can he provide reasons for not doing so?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
4 April 2006
Responded by
Parliamentary Secretary representing the Attorney General
Response time
20 days
(b) what was the terms of the investigation; and (c) will the Attorney General table a copy of the report into the matter?
(c) will the Attorney General table a copy of the report into the matter?
(1) The Attorney General received a copy of a complaint made to the Premier by a Mr E J Bride in letters dated 28 November 2005 and 4 January 2006 asserting "criminal conduct" by three Supreme Court judges in relation to litigation that Mr Bride had been involved in. (2) The Attorney General sought and received advice from the State Solicitor's Office. Mr Bride was then advised by the then Acting Premier on 29 December 2005 and by the Premier on 9 February 2006 that his complaint was without legal merit and that the Government would not be taking any action. (3) No. (a) to (c) Not applicable. (4) The papers provided by the correspondent did not warrant investigation.
(2) The Attorney General sought and received advice from the State Solicitor's Office. Mr Bride was then advised by the then Acting Premier on 29 December 2005 and by the Premier on 9 February 2006 that his complaint was without legal merit and that the Government would not be taking any action. (3) No. (a) to (c) Not applicable. (4) The papers provided by the correspondent did not warrant investigation.
(2) The Attorney General sought and received advice from the State Solicitor's Office. Mr Bride was then advised by the then Acting Premier on 29 December 2005 and by the Premier on 9 February 2006 that his complaint was without legal merit and that the Government would not be taking any action. (3) No. (a) to (c) Not applicable. (4) The papers provided by the correspondent did not warrant investigation.
(3) No. (a) to (c) Not applicable. (4) The papers provided by the correspondent did not warrant investigation.
(a) to (c) Not applicable. (4) The papers provided by the correspondent did not warrant investigation.
(4) The papers provided by the correspondent did not warrant investigation.
(c) will the Attorney General table a copy of the report into the matter?
(1) The Attorney General received a copy of a complaint made to the Premier by a Mr E J Bride in letters dated 28 November 2005 and 4 January 2006 asserting "criminal conduct" by three Supreme Court judges in relation to litigation that Mr Bride had been involved in. (2) The Attorney General sought and received advice from the State Solicitor's Office. Mr Bride was then advised by the then Acting Premier on 29 December 2005 and by the Premier on 9 February 2006 that his complaint was without legal merit and that the Government would not be taking any action. (3) No. (a) to (c) Not applicable. (4) The papers provided by the correspondent did not warrant investigation.
(2) The Attorney General sought and received advice from the State Solicitor's Office. Mr Bride was then advised by the then Acting Premier on 29 December 2005 and by the Premier on 9 February 2006 that his complaint was without legal merit and that the Government would not be taking any action. (3) No. (a) to (c) Not applicable. (4) The papers provided by the correspondent did not warrant investigation.
(2) The Attorney General sought and received advice from the State Solicitor's Office. Mr Bride was then advised by the then Acting Premier on 29 December 2005 and by the Premier on 9 February 2006 that his complaint was without legal merit and that the Government would not be taking any action. (3) No. (a) to (c) Not applicable. (4) The papers provided by the correspondent did not warrant investigation.
(3) No. (a) to (c) Not applicable. (4) The papers provided by the correspondent did not warrant investigation.
(a) to (c) Not applicable. (4) The papers provided by the correspondent did not warrant investigation.
(4) The papers provided by the correspondent did not warrant investigation.
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.