❓ Question regarding the Leader of the Opposition's statement advocating for ministerial interference in the Supervised Release Review Board's decision-making, with the Attorney General accusing the Leader of the Opposition of advocating official corruption.
AnsweredQoN 645Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
Can the Attorney General advise the House of the ramifications of the extraordinary statement this morning by the Leader of the Opposition in which he advocated improper ministerial interference in the decision making of the Supervised Release Review Board? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
Most members would have severe reservations about the decision to release two rapists under a supervised release order. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: The reason for those severe reservations, I think it is true to say, is that we would all have complete sympathy for the victim of this vicious offence. It is quite another matter, however, to ask members whether they have any support for the Leader of the Opposition, who openly advocated this morning that ministers of the State should engage in official corruption. When I sat back and listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said, I was appalled. I made the point of contacting the Solicitor General and seeking his advice on this matter. Mr C.J. Barnett: Official corruption - take me away! Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: Most members would have severe reservations about the decision to release two rapists under a supervised release order. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: The reason for those severe reservations, I think it is true to say, is that we would all have complete sympathy for the victim of this vicious offence. It is quite another matter, however, to ask members whether they have any support for the Leader of the Opposition, who openly advocated this morning that ministers of the State should engage in official corruption. When I sat back and listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said, I was appalled. I made the point of contacting the Solicitor General and seeking his advice on this matter. Mr C.J. Barnett: Official corruption - take me away! Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Most members would have severe reservations about the decision to release two rapists under a supervised release order. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: The reason for those severe reservations, I think it is true to say, is that we would all have complete sympathy for the victim of this vicious offence. It is quite another matter, however, to ask members whether they have any support for the Leader of the Opposition, who openly advocated this morning that ministers of the State should engage in official corruption. When I sat back and listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said, I was appalled. I made the point of contacting the Solicitor General and seeking his advice on this matter. Mr C.J. Barnett: Official corruption - take me away! Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: The reason for those severe reservations, I think it is true to say, is that we would all have complete sympathy for the victim of this vicious offence. It is quite another matter, however, to ask members whether they have any support for the Leader of the Opposition, who openly advocated this morning that ministers of the State should engage in official corruption. When I sat back and listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said, I was appalled. I made the point of contacting the Solicitor General and seeking his advice on this matter. Mr C.J. Barnett: Official corruption - take me away! Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: The reason for those severe reservations, I think it is true to say, is that we would all have complete sympathy for the victim of this vicious offence. It is quite another matter, however, to ask members whether they have any support for the Leader of the Opposition, who openly advocated this morning that ministers of the State should engage in official corruption. When I sat back and listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said, I was appalled. I made the point of contacting the Solicitor General and seeking his advice on this matter. Mr C.J. Barnett: Official corruption - take me away! Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: The reason for those severe reservations, I think it is true to say, is that we would all have complete sympathy for the victim of this vicious offence. It is quite another matter, however, to ask members whether they have any support for the Leader of the Opposition, who openly advocated this morning that ministers of the State should engage in official corruption. When I sat back and listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said, I was appalled. I made the point of contacting the Solicitor General and seeking his advice on this matter. Mr C.J. Barnett: Official corruption - take me away! Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: The reason for those severe reservations, I think it is true to say, is that we would all have complete sympathy for the victim of this vicious offence. It is quite another matter, however, to ask members whether they have any support for the Leader of the Opposition, who openly advocated this morning that ministers of the State should engage in official corruption. When I sat back and listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said, I was appalled. I made the point of contacting the Solicitor General and seeking his advice on this matter. Mr C.J. Barnett: Official corruption - take me away! Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: The reason for those severe reservations, I think it is true to say, is that we would all have complete sympathy for the victim of this vicious offence. It is quite another matter, however, to ask members whether they have any support for the Leader of the Opposition, who openly advocated this morning that ministers of the State should engage in official corruption. When I sat back and listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said, I was appalled. I made the point of contacting the Solicitor General and seeking his advice on this matter. Mr C.J. Barnett: Official corruption - take me away! Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Official corruption - take me away! Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
. . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
(d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
(i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
(a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
(b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: Most members would have severe reservations about the decision to release two rapists under a supervised release order. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: The reason for those severe reservations, I think it is true to say, is that we would all have complete sympathy for the victim of this vicious offence. It is quite another matter, however, to ask members whether they have any support for the Leader of the Opposition, who openly advocated this morning that ministers of the State should engage in official corruption. When I sat back and listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said, I was appalled. I made the point of contacting the Solicitor General and seeking his advice on this matter. Mr C.J. Barnett: Official corruption - take me away! Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Most members would have severe reservations about the decision to release two rapists under a supervised release order. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: The reason for those severe reservations, I think it is true to say, is that we would all have complete sympathy for the victim of this vicious offence. It is quite another matter, however, to ask members whether they have any support for the Leader of the Opposition, who openly advocated this morning that ministers of the State should engage in official corruption. When I sat back and listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said, I was appalled. I made the point of contacting the Solicitor General and seeking his advice on this matter. Mr C.J. Barnett: Official corruption - take me away! Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: The reason for those severe reservations, I think it is true to say, is that we would all have complete sympathy for the victim of this vicious offence. It is quite another matter, however, to ask members whether they have any support for the Leader of the Opposition, who openly advocated this morning that ministers of the State should engage in official corruption. When I sat back and listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said, I was appalled. I made the point of contacting the Solicitor General and seeking his advice on this matter. Mr C.J. Barnett: Official corruption - take me away! Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: The reason for those severe reservations, I think it is true to say, is that we would all have complete sympathy for the victim of this vicious offence. It is quite another matter, however, to ask members whether they have any support for the Leader of the Opposition, who openly advocated this morning that ministers of the State should engage in official corruption. When I sat back and listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said, I was appalled. I made the point of contacting the Solicitor General and seeking his advice on this matter. Mr C.J. Barnett: Official corruption - take me away! Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: The reason for those severe reservations, I think it is true to say, is that we would all have complete sympathy for the victim of this vicious offence. It is quite another matter, however, to ask members whether they have any support for the Leader of the Opposition, who openly advocated this morning that ministers of the State should engage in official corruption. When I sat back and listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said, I was appalled. I made the point of contacting the Solicitor General and seeking his advice on this matter. Mr C.J. Barnett: Official corruption - take me away! Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
The SPEAKER: Order, member for Nedlands! Mr J.A. McGINTY: The reason for those severe reservations, I think it is true to say, is that we would all have complete sympathy for the victim of this vicious offence. It is quite another matter, however, to ask members whether they have any support for the Leader of the Opposition, who openly advocated this morning that ministers of the State should engage in official corruption. When I sat back and listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said, I was appalled. I made the point of contacting the Solicitor General and seeking his advice on this matter. Mr C.J. Barnett: Official corruption - take me away! Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: The reason for those severe reservations, I think it is true to say, is that we would all have complete sympathy for the victim of this vicious offence. It is quite another matter, however, to ask members whether they have any support for the Leader of the Opposition, who openly advocated this morning that ministers of the State should engage in official corruption. When I sat back and listened to what the Leader of the Opposition said, I was appalled. I made the point of contacting the Solicitor General and seeking his advice on this matter. Mr C.J. Barnett: Official corruption - take me away! Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Official corruption - take me away! Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: It says an awful lot about the standards of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr C.J. Barnett: You’re the guy who gave away an affidavit to the guy sitting next to you! Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
The SPEAKER: Order! Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am saying that the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
The SPEAKER: Order! I call to order the member for Kalgoorlie and the Leader of the Opposition, and I urge people to allow the Attorney General to answer the question. Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the second time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I listened to the Leader of the Opposition advocate that ministers should engage in official corruption, and it was something that I think every member of this House would find absolutely appalling. The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
The SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr M.J. Birney interjected. The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Kalgoorlie to order for the third time. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Advocating official corruption - is that the official Liberal Party position, is it? That is pretty good! The Leader of the Opposition is reaching right down into the gutter in terms of his standards. Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Section 4 of the Corruption and Crime Commission Act defines misconduct as follows - Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Misconduct occurs if - . . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
. . . (d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
(d) a public officer - That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
That includes a minister - engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
engages in conduct that (i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
(i) adversely affects, or could adversely affect, directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial performance of the functions of a public authority or public officer . . . That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition advocated in this House this morning. He said that a minister - in this case, the Minister for Justice - should have got onto the phone to the Chairman of the Supervised Release Review Board and said, “I am unhappy with that outcome. Please revisit it.” That is corruption, Mr Speaker. That is seeking to influence an independent statutory officer - Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr C.J. Barnett: Tell the victim; tell the 78-year-old woman it is corrupt. Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I have already said that we have enormous sympathy for the victim of this crime. Once the Leader of the Opposition advocates throwing out the rule of law, he is inviting anarchy. The Leader of the Opposition is on a pre-election stunt - that is all he is engaged in. The minute the Leader of the Opposition wants to interfere with the way people are required by law to make their decisions, and to interfere with their decision making, he is behaving corruptly; there is no other way to describe it. This is exactly the sort of conduct that the Corruption and Crime Commission was set up to deal with, as outlined in section 7A of the Act, as follows - The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
The main purposes of this Act are - (a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
(a) to combat and reduce the incidence of organised crime; and (b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
(b) to improve continuously the integrity of, and to reduce the incidence of misconduct in, the public sector. Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Misconduct is about official corruption, which the Leader of the Opposition has been advocating in this place today. As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
As I said, we all have serious reservations about the decision that was made. It is another matter altogether to suggest that a minister ought to improperly and criminally involve herself in trying to effect a different decision on an independent decision-making body established for that purpose. Going back a little into the history of these things, the reason that independent statutory officers, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions, were created to behave independently of politics was to ensure that decisions are made apart from the political process in a number of these sensitive matters. Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Ms S.E. Walker interjected. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Should I, according to the member’s way of thinking, telephone a judge every time a decision is handed down that I do not particularly like and say that I am not happy with it and he should come down to my office and account for himself? Should I do that with the Director of Public Prosecutions every time he undertakes something I do not agree with? The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we go down a very dangerous path by advocating the overthrow of the rule of law. He is advocating that people should engage in official corruption. It does not matter what rationalisation he offers for achieving the end result; the Leader of the Opposition is advocating corruption. If that is the standard of behaviour he advocates, he will lead a very grubby Opposition for a very long period. It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
It is a fundamental error to come into this place and advocate breaking the law. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has done today. The Opposition has embarked upon a pre-election binge of irrationality. I suspect that in a mature moment of reflection the Leader of the Opposition will admit that he has done something horribly wrong today.
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.