❓ A parliamentary question regarding the need for a royal commission into the Petrelis affair and alleged corruption within the WA Police Service, focusing on the limitations of a previous report and the government's response favoring existing anti-corruption mechanisms.
AnsweredQoN 32Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
How could the minister possibly claim yesterday that nothing further could be gained from a royal commission into the Petrelis affair when Len Roberts-Smith QC stated in his report tabled in this place that his inquiry did not have any legislative authority; that he had no coercive powers whatsoever to compel anyone to appear before him, answer questions or provide documents; that evidence given to him was not given under oath or subject to cross examination; and that he was unable to interview four persons of significant interest, quite apart from John Kizon, whom he did not even attempt to interview? Is it not the case that the report tabled yesterday raises more questions than it answers, such as the whereabouts of the files of protected witness No 3 in the Phillip Morrison case and the file of disgraced officer Davy? Mr PRINCE
AnswerView source ↗
In relation to the matter of the death of Andrew Petrelis, the questions which have been asked and which are in the report - and which Mr Roberts-Smith amplifies very well - are ones that need to be answered by inquest. If the man had died in this State, there would have been an inquest. He died in Queensland and the authorities there at the time determined the matter. Mrs Roberts: What about Davy and Shadgett? Mr PRINCE: I have not got to that point yet. Let me deal with this matter first. Dr Gallop: Why does the minister not call Peter Beattie and ask him to conduct a royal commission into the Western Australia Police Service? MR PRINCE: The Opposition is completely obsessed with the concept of a royal commission and is not looking at what it should be looking at, which is the result. If the Opposition wants to deal with police corruption - Dr Gallop: The minister is sitting on something very smelly - it is the corruption within the Western Australia Police Service. It smells. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Is it not the case that the report tabled yesterday raises more questions than it answers, such as the whereabouts of the files of protected witness No 3 in the Phillip Morrison case and the file of disgraced officer Davy? Mr PRINCE replied: In relation to the matter of the death of Andrew Petrelis, the questions which have been asked and which are in the report - and which Mr Roberts-Smith amplifies very well - are ones that need to be answered by inquest. If the man had died in this State, there would have been an inquest. He died in Queensland and the authorities there at the time determined the matter. Mrs Roberts: What about Davy and Shadgett? Mr PRINCE: I have not got to that point yet. Let me deal with this matter first. Dr Gallop: Why does the minister not call Peter Beattie and ask him to conduct a royal commission into the Western Australia Police Service? MR PRINCE: The Opposition is completely obsessed with the concept of a royal commission and is not looking at what it should be looking at, which is the result. If the Opposition wants to deal with police corruption - Dr Gallop: The minister is sitting on something very smelly - it is the corruption within the Western Australia Police Service. It smells. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Mr PRINCE replied: In relation to the matter of the death of Andrew Petrelis, the questions which have been asked and which are in the report - and which Mr Roberts-Smith amplifies very well - are ones that need to be answered by inquest. If the man had died in this State, there would have been an inquest. He died in Queensland and the authorities there at the time determined the matter. Mrs Roberts: What about Davy and Shadgett? Mr PRINCE: I have not got to that point yet. Let me deal with this matter first. Dr Gallop: Why does the minister not call Peter Beattie and ask him to conduct a royal commission into the Western Australia Police Service? MR PRINCE: The Opposition is completely obsessed with the concept of a royal commission and is not looking at what it should be looking at, which is the result. If the Opposition wants to deal with police corruption - Dr Gallop: The minister is sitting on something very smelly - it is the corruption within the Western Australia Police Service. It smells. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
In relation to the matter of the death of Andrew Petrelis, the questions which have been asked and which are in the report - and which Mr Roberts-Smith amplifies very well - are ones that need to be answered by inquest. If the man had died in this State, there would have been an inquest. He died in Queensland and the authorities there at the time determined the matter. Mrs Roberts: What about Davy and Shadgett? Mr PRINCE: I have not got to that point yet. Let me deal with this matter first. Dr Gallop: Why does the minister not call Peter Beattie and ask him to conduct a royal commission into the Western Australia Police Service? MR PRINCE: The Opposition is completely obsessed with the concept of a royal commission and is not looking at what it should be looking at, which is the result. If the Opposition wants to deal with police corruption - Dr Gallop: The minister is sitting on something very smelly - it is the corruption within the Western Australia Police Service. It smells. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Mrs Roberts: What about Davy and Shadgett? Mr PRINCE: I have not got to that point yet. Let me deal with this matter first. Dr Gallop: Why does the minister not call Peter Beattie and ask him to conduct a royal commission into the Western Australia Police Service? MR PRINCE: The Opposition is completely obsessed with the concept of a royal commission and is not looking at what it should be looking at, which is the result. If the Opposition wants to deal with police corruption - Dr Gallop: The minister is sitting on something very smelly - it is the corruption within the Western Australia Police Service. It smells. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Mr PRINCE: I have not got to that point yet. Let me deal with this matter first. Dr Gallop: Why does the minister not call Peter Beattie and ask him to conduct a royal commission into the Western Australia Police Service? MR PRINCE: The Opposition is completely obsessed with the concept of a royal commission and is not looking at what it should be looking at, which is the result. If the Opposition wants to deal with police corruption - Dr Gallop: The minister is sitting on something very smelly - it is the corruption within the Western Australia Police Service. It smells. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Dr Gallop: Why does the minister not call Peter Beattie and ask him to conduct a royal commission into the Western Australia Police Service? MR PRINCE: The Opposition is completely obsessed with the concept of a royal commission and is not looking at what it should be looking at, which is the result. If the Opposition wants to deal with police corruption - Dr Gallop: The minister is sitting on something very smelly - it is the corruption within the Western Australia Police Service. It smells. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
MR PRINCE: The Opposition is completely obsessed with the concept of a royal commission and is not looking at what it should be looking at, which is the result. If the Opposition wants to deal with police corruption - Dr Gallop: The minister is sitting on something very smelly - it is the corruption within the Western Australia Police Service. It smells. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Dr Gallop: The minister is sitting on something very smelly - it is the corruption within the Western Australia Police Service. It smells. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Is it not the case that the report tabled yesterday raises more questions than it answers, such as the whereabouts of the files of protected witness No 3 in the Phillip Morrison case and the file of disgraced officer Davy? Mr PRINCE replied: In relation to the matter of the death of Andrew Petrelis, the questions which have been asked and which are in the report - and which Mr Roberts-Smith amplifies very well - are ones that need to be answered by inquest. If the man had died in this State, there would have been an inquest. He died in Queensland and the authorities there at the time determined the matter. Mrs Roberts: What about Davy and Shadgett? Mr PRINCE: I have not got to that point yet. Let me deal with this matter first. Dr Gallop: Why does the minister not call Peter Beattie and ask him to conduct a royal commission into the Western Australia Police Service? MR PRINCE: The Opposition is completely obsessed with the concept of a royal commission and is not looking at what it should be looking at, which is the result. If the Opposition wants to deal with police corruption - Dr Gallop: The minister is sitting on something very smelly - it is the corruption within the Western Australia Police Service. It smells. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Mr PRINCE replied: In relation to the matter of the death of Andrew Petrelis, the questions which have been asked and which are in the report - and which Mr Roberts-Smith amplifies very well - are ones that need to be answered by inquest. If the man had died in this State, there would have been an inquest. He died in Queensland and the authorities there at the time determined the matter. Mrs Roberts: What about Davy and Shadgett? Mr PRINCE: I have not got to that point yet. Let me deal with this matter first. Dr Gallop: Why does the minister not call Peter Beattie and ask him to conduct a royal commission into the Western Australia Police Service? MR PRINCE: The Opposition is completely obsessed with the concept of a royal commission and is not looking at what it should be looking at, which is the result. If the Opposition wants to deal with police corruption - Dr Gallop: The minister is sitting on something very smelly - it is the corruption within the Western Australia Police Service. It smells. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
In relation to the matter of the death of Andrew Petrelis, the questions which have been asked and which are in the report - and which Mr Roberts-Smith amplifies very well - are ones that need to be answered by inquest. If the man had died in this State, there would have been an inquest. He died in Queensland and the authorities there at the time determined the matter. Mrs Roberts: What about Davy and Shadgett? Mr PRINCE: I have not got to that point yet. Let me deal with this matter first. Dr Gallop: Why does the minister not call Peter Beattie and ask him to conduct a royal commission into the Western Australia Police Service? MR PRINCE: The Opposition is completely obsessed with the concept of a royal commission and is not looking at what it should be looking at, which is the result. If the Opposition wants to deal with police corruption - Dr Gallop: The minister is sitting on something very smelly - it is the corruption within the Western Australia Police Service. It smells. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Mrs Roberts: What about Davy and Shadgett? Mr PRINCE: I have not got to that point yet. Let me deal with this matter first. Dr Gallop: Why does the minister not call Peter Beattie and ask him to conduct a royal commission into the Western Australia Police Service? MR PRINCE: The Opposition is completely obsessed with the concept of a royal commission and is not looking at what it should be looking at, which is the result. If the Opposition wants to deal with police corruption - Dr Gallop: The minister is sitting on something very smelly - it is the corruption within the Western Australia Police Service. It smells. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Mr PRINCE: I have not got to that point yet. Let me deal with this matter first. Dr Gallop: Why does the minister not call Peter Beattie and ask him to conduct a royal commission into the Western Australia Police Service? MR PRINCE: The Opposition is completely obsessed with the concept of a royal commission and is not looking at what it should be looking at, which is the result. If the Opposition wants to deal with police corruption - Dr Gallop: The minister is sitting on something very smelly - it is the corruption within the Western Australia Police Service. It smells. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Dr Gallop: Why does the minister not call Peter Beattie and ask him to conduct a royal commission into the Western Australia Police Service? MR PRINCE: The Opposition is completely obsessed with the concept of a royal commission and is not looking at what it should be looking at, which is the result. If the Opposition wants to deal with police corruption - Dr Gallop: The minister is sitting on something very smelly - it is the corruption within the Western Australia Police Service. It smells. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
MR PRINCE: The Opposition is completely obsessed with the concept of a royal commission and is not looking at what it should be looking at, which is the result. If the Opposition wants to deal with police corruption - Dr Gallop: The minister is sitting on something very smelly - it is the corruption within the Western Australia Police Service. It smells. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Dr Gallop: The minister is sitting on something very smelly - it is the corruption within the Western Australia Police Service. It smells. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
The SPEAKER: Order! I think all members know what just went wrong. Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Mr PRINCE: To say that the Police Service of this State smells are words that will come back to haunt the Opposition. If the Opposition wants to deal with corruption within the Police Service, it should read the Wood royal commission recommendations that stated that an independent body must be charged with the task of dealing with allegations of corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
The SPEAKER: Order! I thought the point had been made by letting members reflect on what has been happening. It is not acceptable to have members of the Parliament, even if they are leaders, interjecting across the Chamber and over the top of the minister. The member to whom I am trying to give the opportunity of interjecting is the member who asked the question. Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Mr PRINCE: There must be an independent body which can work away from the glare of publicity, otherwise, in the words of Hon Justice Miller who was a special investigator under the provisions of the Anti-Corruption Commission Act, there would have been no way they could have got the information about the six police officers who were subsequently suspended. It has to be done in confidence. The second thing the Opposition conveniently forgets about royal commissions is the cost. It has been said publicly in New South Wales that the Wood royal commission cost $100m. The Opposition wants a royal commission into the Police Service in this State but it will have to abolish the Anti-Corruption Commission in order to do it. It will have to take the ACC’s budget which is $10m. Where is the rest of the money coming from? The Opposition makes wild accusations claiming that a royal commission will fix the problem. What about extending the terms of reference to look into the Argyle diamond mine scandal when Labor was last in government? It is absurd. One deals with corruption on an ongoing basis and it is done with independent bodies which are charged to do it and which are properly empowered. Is the Opposition in favour of changing the ACC legislation so that they have the power to compel or is the Opposition going to stop that legislation as well? The Opposition has no idea what it is talking about. I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
I support the recommendations in the Roberts-Smith report. The one I had to attend to straight away was done. The Queensland authorities have been asked to hold an inquest into the Petrelis death. Roberts-Smith has done a very good investigation. His report is an excellent piece of work and should be read carefully and widely. Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Dr Gallop: There is no protection for witnesses in WA! Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Mr PRINCE: Bloody hell! The question raised regarding the missing files is a matter of great seriousness which has to be inquired into. The best people for that are the ACC, the commissioner for professional standards and the Ombudsman. A royal commission is not going to get better answers than any other body will. Why does the Opposition think there is some sort of magic about a royal commission that witnesses will actually front up? Members of the Opposition should not be so absurd. If we are going to deal with corruption on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, we must have the bodies that will do it. They must be able to work in confidence. Everybody who has ever investigated this sort of thing says that this is the best way of dealing with corruption. Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Dr Gallop: We already have one body too many! Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
Mr PRINCE: It is the best way of keeping with corruption and that is what we will do.
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.