❓ Question regarding adequacy of legal representation funding for police officers appearing before a Royal Commission, compared to funding provided in the past. Attorney General defends the funding level, citing advice and potential conflicts of interest.
AnsweredQoN 201Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Attorney General to the legal representation scheme announced by the Government on 10 April this year for police officers who may be called to appear before the Royal Commission Into Whether There Has Been Any Corrupt or Criminal Conduct by Western Australian Police Officers. (1) Is the Attorney General aware that his decision to provide only $800 per day for legal representation for police officers is preventing some officers from using lawyers who have previously represented them in other forums and whose fees may be in excess of $800 per day? (2) How does the Attorney General reconcile this amount of $800 per day for police officers with the figure of up to $6 000 per day granted by the Labor Government for legal representation of Labor Party members who appeared before the WA Inc royal commission? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) I will answer the last part of the question first. We are all grateful that time has moved on and political standards have changed dramatically, particularly under this Government. When we established the legal representation scheme for police officers, it was based on the scheme that applied in New South Wales during the Wood royal commission into police corruption, which continued in the form of a police legal representation scheme with the establishment of the Police Integrity Commission and the like in New South Wales. The Crown Solicitor recommended to government that the amount of $800 per day was adequate. I cannot give the member the exact figure because I had no notice of the question, but my recollection is that about 70 or 80 criminal lawyers put up their hands because they wanted to be part of the scheme at the rate at which it was advertised. I can provide the member with the exact figure at the end of question time if he would like that information. The legal profession’s response to the amount of $800 per day, as recommended to us by the Crown Solicitor, was overwhelming. This matter was discussed with the Police Union (WA) at the time. It was aware of all the conditions. It has raised with me only one issue since the legal representation scheme for the police royal commission was established; that is, the ability to top up beyond the $800 per day that was allowed. Mr M.J. Birney: That is exactly the same question. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, it is a different question. The issue that was discussed with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation was that there would be no provision for top up. The reason for that is very simple: by having two clients - namely, the Police Union, which would top up the money, and the police officer - the lawyer who appeared for the police officer would not have a direct duty to only one client; that is, the police officer he represented. That is the reason we have said that the scheme will be there for those who wish to use it and that $800 per day will be paid to the lawyer of the police officer’s choice who was prepared to participate in the scheme. A wide array of criminal lawyers was prepared to participate in the scheme. Mr M.J. Birney: Will you allow an individual police officer to top up that $800 per day in order to afford a lawyer who might have represented him or her in the past? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am happy to look at that proposition if it comes from an individual. The proposition that has been raised with us so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up that amount. The Government said no to that because it dealt with that issue in discussions with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation. The conflict of interest that it gave rise to was such that we thought $800 with no top up was a reasonable proposition. Mr M.J. Birney: However, you will allow an individual police officer to top it up? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
(1) Is the Attorney General aware that his decision to provide only $800 per day for legal representation for police officers is preventing some officers from using lawyers who have previously represented them in other forums and whose fees may be in excess of $800 per day? (2) How does the Attorney General reconcile this amount of $800 per day for police officers with the figure of up to $6 000 per day granted by the Labor Government for legal representation of Labor Party members who appeared before the WA Inc royal commission? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I will answer the last part of the question first. We are all grateful that time has moved on and political standards have changed dramatically, particularly under this Government. When we established the legal representation scheme for police officers, it was based on the scheme that applied in New South Wales during the Wood royal commission into police corruption, which continued in the form of a police legal representation scheme with the establishment of the Police Integrity Commission and the like in New South Wales. The Crown Solicitor recommended to government that the amount of $800 per day was adequate. I cannot give the member the exact figure because I had no notice of the question, but my recollection is that about 70 or 80 criminal lawyers put up their hands because they wanted to be part of the scheme at the rate at which it was advertised. I can provide the member with the exact figure at the end of question time if he would like that information. The legal profession’s response to the amount of $800 per day, as recommended to us by the Crown Solicitor, was overwhelming. This matter was discussed with the Police Union (WA) at the time. It was aware of all the conditions. It has raised with me only one issue since the legal representation scheme for the police royal commission was established; that is, the ability to top up beyond the $800 per day that was allowed. Mr M.J. Birney: That is exactly the same question. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, it is a different question. The issue that was discussed with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation was that there would be no provision for top up. The reason for that is very simple: by having two clients - namely, the Police Union, which would top up the money, and the police officer - the lawyer who appeared for the police officer would not have a direct duty to only one client; that is, the police officer he represented. That is the reason we have said that the scheme will be there for those who wish to use it and that $800 per day will be paid to the lawyer of the police officer’s choice who was prepared to participate in the scheme. A wide array of criminal lawyers was prepared to participate in the scheme. Mr M.J. Birney: Will you allow an individual police officer to top up that $800 per day in order to afford a lawyer who might have represented him or her in the past? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am happy to look at that proposition if it comes from an individual. The proposition that has been raised with us so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up that amount. The Government said no to that because it dealt with that issue in discussions with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation. The conflict of interest that it gave rise to was such that we thought $800 with no top up was a reasonable proposition. Mr M.J. Birney: However, you will allow an individual police officer to top it up? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
(2) How does the Attorney General reconcile this amount of $800 per day for police officers with the figure of up to $6 000 per day granted by the Labor Government for legal representation of Labor Party members who appeared before the WA Inc royal commission? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I will answer the last part of the question first. We are all grateful that time has moved on and political standards have changed dramatically, particularly under this Government. When we established the legal representation scheme for police officers, it was based on the scheme that applied in New South Wales during the Wood royal commission into police corruption, which continued in the form of a police legal representation scheme with the establishment of the Police Integrity Commission and the like in New South Wales. The Crown Solicitor recommended to government that the amount of $800 per day was adequate. I cannot give the member the exact figure because I had no notice of the question, but my recollection is that about 70 or 80 criminal lawyers put up their hands because they wanted to be part of the scheme at the rate at which it was advertised. I can provide the member with the exact figure at the end of question time if he would like that information. The legal profession’s response to the amount of $800 per day, as recommended to us by the Crown Solicitor, was overwhelming. This matter was discussed with the Police Union (WA) at the time. It was aware of all the conditions. It has raised with me only one issue since the legal representation scheme for the police royal commission was established; that is, the ability to top up beyond the $800 per day that was allowed. Mr M.J. Birney: That is exactly the same question. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, it is a different question. The issue that was discussed with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation was that there would be no provision for top up. The reason for that is very simple: by having two clients - namely, the Police Union, which would top up the money, and the police officer - the lawyer who appeared for the police officer would not have a direct duty to only one client; that is, the police officer he represented. That is the reason we have said that the scheme will be there for those who wish to use it and that $800 per day will be paid to the lawyer of the police officer’s choice who was prepared to participate in the scheme. A wide array of criminal lawyers was prepared to participate in the scheme. Mr M.J. Birney: Will you allow an individual police officer to top up that $800 per day in order to afford a lawyer who might have represented him or her in the past? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am happy to look at that proposition if it comes from an individual. The proposition that has been raised with us so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up that amount. The Government said no to that because it dealt with that issue in discussions with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation. The conflict of interest that it gave rise to was such that we thought $800 with no top up was a reasonable proposition. Mr M.J. Birney: However, you will allow an individual police officer to top it up? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I will answer the last part of the question first. We are all grateful that time has moved on and political standards have changed dramatically, particularly under this Government. When we established the legal representation scheme for police officers, it was based on the scheme that applied in New South Wales during the Wood royal commission into police corruption, which continued in the form of a police legal representation scheme with the establishment of the Police Integrity Commission and the like in New South Wales. The Crown Solicitor recommended to government that the amount of $800 per day was adequate. I cannot give the member the exact figure because I had no notice of the question, but my recollection is that about 70 or 80 criminal lawyers put up their hands because they wanted to be part of the scheme at the rate at which it was advertised. I can provide the member with the exact figure at the end of question time if he would like that information. The legal profession’s response to the amount of $800 per day, as recommended to us by the Crown Solicitor, was overwhelming. This matter was discussed with the Police Union (WA) at the time. It was aware of all the conditions. It has raised with me only one issue since the legal representation scheme for the police royal commission was established; that is, the ability to top up beyond the $800 per day that was allowed. Mr M.J. Birney: That is exactly the same question. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, it is a different question. The issue that was discussed with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation was that there would be no provision for top up. The reason for that is very simple: by having two clients - namely, the Police Union, which would top up the money, and the police officer - the lawyer who appeared for the police officer would not have a direct duty to only one client; that is, the police officer he represented. That is the reason we have said that the scheme will be there for those who wish to use it and that $800 per day will be paid to the lawyer of the police officer’s choice who was prepared to participate in the scheme. A wide array of criminal lawyers was prepared to participate in the scheme. Mr M.J. Birney: Will you allow an individual police officer to top up that $800 per day in order to afford a lawyer who might have represented him or her in the past? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am happy to look at that proposition if it comes from an individual. The proposition that has been raised with us so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up that amount. The Government said no to that because it dealt with that issue in discussions with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation. The conflict of interest that it gave rise to was such that we thought $800 with no top up was a reasonable proposition. Mr M.J. Birney: However, you will allow an individual police officer to top it up? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
(1)-(2) I will answer the last part of the question first. We are all grateful that time has moved on and political standards have changed dramatically, particularly under this Government. When we established the legal representation scheme for police officers, it was based on the scheme that applied in New South Wales during the Wood royal commission into police corruption, which continued in the form of a police legal representation scheme with the establishment of the Police Integrity Commission and the like in New South Wales. The Crown Solicitor recommended to government that the amount of $800 per day was adequate. I cannot give the member the exact figure because I had no notice of the question, but my recollection is that about 70 or 80 criminal lawyers put up their hands because they wanted to be part of the scheme at the rate at which it was advertised. I can provide the member with the exact figure at the end of question time if he would like that information. The legal profession’s response to the amount of $800 per day, as recommended to us by the Crown Solicitor, was overwhelming. This matter was discussed with the Police Union (WA) at the time. It was aware of all the conditions. It has raised with me only one issue since the legal representation scheme for the police royal commission was established; that is, the ability to top up beyond the $800 per day that was allowed. Mr M.J. Birney: That is exactly the same question. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, it is a different question. The issue that was discussed with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation was that there would be no provision for top up. The reason for that is very simple: by having two clients - namely, the Police Union, which would top up the money, and the police officer - the lawyer who appeared for the police officer would not have a direct duty to only one client; that is, the police officer he represented. That is the reason we have said that the scheme will be there for those who wish to use it and that $800 per day will be paid to the lawyer of the police officer’s choice who was prepared to participate in the scheme. A wide array of criminal lawyers was prepared to participate in the scheme. Mr M.J. Birney: Will you allow an individual police officer to top up that $800 per day in order to afford a lawyer who might have represented him or her in the past? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am happy to look at that proposition if it comes from an individual. The proposition that has been raised with us so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up that amount. The Government said no to that because it dealt with that issue in discussions with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation. The conflict of interest that it gave rise to was such that we thought $800 with no top up was a reasonable proposition. Mr M.J. Birney: However, you will allow an individual police officer to top it up? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, it is a different question. The issue that was discussed with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation was that there would be no provision for top up. The reason for that is very simple: by having two clients - namely, the Police Union, which would top up the money, and the police officer - the lawyer who appeared for the police officer would not have a direct duty to only one client; that is, the police officer he represented. That is the reason we have said that the scheme will be there for those who wish to use it and that $800 per day will be paid to the lawyer of the police officer’s choice who was prepared to participate in the scheme. A wide array of criminal lawyers was prepared to participate in the scheme. Mr M.J. Birney: Will you allow an individual police officer to top up that $800 per day in order to afford a lawyer who might have represented him or her in the past? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am happy to look at that proposition if it comes from an individual. The proposition that has been raised with us so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up that amount. The Government said no to that because it dealt with that issue in discussions with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation. The conflict of interest that it gave rise to was such that we thought $800 with no top up was a reasonable proposition. Mr M.J. Birney: However, you will allow an individual police officer to top it up? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr M.J. Birney: Will you allow an individual police officer to top up that $800 per day in order to afford a lawyer who might have represented him or her in the past? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am happy to look at that proposition if it comes from an individual. The proposition that has been raised with us so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up that amount. The Government said no to that because it dealt with that issue in discussions with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation. The conflict of interest that it gave rise to was such that we thought $800 with no top up was a reasonable proposition. Mr M.J. Birney: However, you will allow an individual police officer to top it up? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am happy to look at that proposition if it comes from an individual. The proposition that has been raised with us so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up that amount. The Government said no to that because it dealt with that issue in discussions with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation. The conflict of interest that it gave rise to was such that we thought $800 with no top up was a reasonable proposition. Mr M.J. Birney: However, you will allow an individual police officer to top it up? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr M.J. Birney: However, you will allow an individual police officer to top it up? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
(1) Is the Attorney General aware that his decision to provide only $800 per day for legal representation for police officers is preventing some officers from using lawyers who have previously represented them in other forums and whose fees may be in excess of $800 per day? (2) How does the Attorney General reconcile this amount of $800 per day for police officers with the figure of up to $6 000 per day granted by the Labor Government for legal representation of Labor Party members who appeared before the WA Inc royal commission? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I will answer the last part of the question first. We are all grateful that time has moved on and political standards have changed dramatically, particularly under this Government. When we established the legal representation scheme for police officers, it was based on the scheme that applied in New South Wales during the Wood royal commission into police corruption, which continued in the form of a police legal representation scheme with the establishment of the Police Integrity Commission and the like in New South Wales. The Crown Solicitor recommended to government that the amount of $800 per day was adequate. I cannot give the member the exact figure because I had no notice of the question, but my recollection is that about 70 or 80 criminal lawyers put up their hands because they wanted to be part of the scheme at the rate at which it was advertised. I can provide the member with the exact figure at the end of question time if he would like that information. The legal profession’s response to the amount of $800 per day, as recommended to us by the Crown Solicitor, was overwhelming. This matter was discussed with the Police Union (WA) at the time. It was aware of all the conditions. It has raised with me only one issue since the legal representation scheme for the police royal commission was established; that is, the ability to top up beyond the $800 per day that was allowed. Mr M.J. Birney: That is exactly the same question. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, it is a different question. The issue that was discussed with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation was that there would be no provision for top up. The reason for that is very simple: by having two clients - namely, the Police Union, which would top up the money, and the police officer - the lawyer who appeared for the police officer would not have a direct duty to only one client; that is, the police officer he represented. That is the reason we have said that the scheme will be there for those who wish to use it and that $800 per day will be paid to the lawyer of the police officer’s choice who was prepared to participate in the scheme. A wide array of criminal lawyers was prepared to participate in the scheme. Mr M.J. Birney: Will you allow an individual police officer to top up that $800 per day in order to afford a lawyer who might have represented him or her in the past? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am happy to look at that proposition if it comes from an individual. The proposition that has been raised with us so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up that amount. The Government said no to that because it dealt with that issue in discussions with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation. The conflict of interest that it gave rise to was such that we thought $800 with no top up was a reasonable proposition. Mr M.J. Birney: However, you will allow an individual police officer to top it up? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
(2) How does the Attorney General reconcile this amount of $800 per day for police officers with the figure of up to $6 000 per day granted by the Labor Government for legal representation of Labor Party members who appeared before the WA Inc royal commission? Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I will answer the last part of the question first. We are all grateful that time has moved on and political standards have changed dramatically, particularly under this Government. When we established the legal representation scheme for police officers, it was based on the scheme that applied in New South Wales during the Wood royal commission into police corruption, which continued in the form of a police legal representation scheme with the establishment of the Police Integrity Commission and the like in New South Wales. The Crown Solicitor recommended to government that the amount of $800 per day was adequate. I cannot give the member the exact figure because I had no notice of the question, but my recollection is that about 70 or 80 criminal lawyers put up their hands because they wanted to be part of the scheme at the rate at which it was advertised. I can provide the member with the exact figure at the end of question time if he would like that information. The legal profession’s response to the amount of $800 per day, as recommended to us by the Crown Solicitor, was overwhelming. This matter was discussed with the Police Union (WA) at the time. It was aware of all the conditions. It has raised with me only one issue since the legal representation scheme for the police royal commission was established; that is, the ability to top up beyond the $800 per day that was allowed. Mr M.J. Birney: That is exactly the same question. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, it is a different question. The issue that was discussed with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation was that there would be no provision for top up. The reason for that is very simple: by having two clients - namely, the Police Union, which would top up the money, and the police officer - the lawyer who appeared for the police officer would not have a direct duty to only one client; that is, the police officer he represented. That is the reason we have said that the scheme will be there for those who wish to use it and that $800 per day will be paid to the lawyer of the police officer’s choice who was prepared to participate in the scheme. A wide array of criminal lawyers was prepared to participate in the scheme. Mr M.J. Birney: Will you allow an individual police officer to top up that $800 per day in order to afford a lawyer who might have represented him or her in the past? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am happy to look at that proposition if it comes from an individual. The proposition that has been raised with us so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up that amount. The Government said no to that because it dealt with that issue in discussions with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation. The conflict of interest that it gave rise to was such that we thought $800 with no top up was a reasonable proposition. Mr M.J. Birney: However, you will allow an individual police officer to top it up? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: (1)-(2) I will answer the last part of the question first. We are all grateful that time has moved on and political standards have changed dramatically, particularly under this Government. When we established the legal representation scheme for police officers, it was based on the scheme that applied in New South Wales during the Wood royal commission into police corruption, which continued in the form of a police legal representation scheme with the establishment of the Police Integrity Commission and the like in New South Wales. The Crown Solicitor recommended to government that the amount of $800 per day was adequate. I cannot give the member the exact figure because I had no notice of the question, but my recollection is that about 70 or 80 criminal lawyers put up their hands because they wanted to be part of the scheme at the rate at which it was advertised. I can provide the member with the exact figure at the end of question time if he would like that information. The legal profession’s response to the amount of $800 per day, as recommended to us by the Crown Solicitor, was overwhelming. This matter was discussed with the Police Union (WA) at the time. It was aware of all the conditions. It has raised with me only one issue since the legal representation scheme for the police royal commission was established; that is, the ability to top up beyond the $800 per day that was allowed. Mr M.J. Birney: That is exactly the same question. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, it is a different question. The issue that was discussed with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation was that there would be no provision for top up. The reason for that is very simple: by having two clients - namely, the Police Union, which would top up the money, and the police officer - the lawyer who appeared for the police officer would not have a direct duty to only one client; that is, the police officer he represented. That is the reason we have said that the scheme will be there for those who wish to use it and that $800 per day will be paid to the lawyer of the police officer’s choice who was prepared to participate in the scheme. A wide array of criminal lawyers was prepared to participate in the scheme. Mr M.J. Birney: Will you allow an individual police officer to top up that $800 per day in order to afford a lawyer who might have represented him or her in the past? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am happy to look at that proposition if it comes from an individual. The proposition that has been raised with us so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up that amount. The Government said no to that because it dealt with that issue in discussions with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation. The conflict of interest that it gave rise to was such that we thought $800 with no top up was a reasonable proposition. Mr M.J. Birney: However, you will allow an individual police officer to top it up? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
(1)-(2) I will answer the last part of the question first. We are all grateful that time has moved on and political standards have changed dramatically, particularly under this Government. When we established the legal representation scheme for police officers, it was based on the scheme that applied in New South Wales during the Wood royal commission into police corruption, which continued in the form of a police legal representation scheme with the establishment of the Police Integrity Commission and the like in New South Wales. The Crown Solicitor recommended to government that the amount of $800 per day was adequate. I cannot give the member the exact figure because I had no notice of the question, but my recollection is that about 70 or 80 criminal lawyers put up their hands because they wanted to be part of the scheme at the rate at which it was advertised. I can provide the member with the exact figure at the end of question time if he would like that information. The legal profession’s response to the amount of $800 per day, as recommended to us by the Crown Solicitor, was overwhelming. This matter was discussed with the Police Union (WA) at the time. It was aware of all the conditions. It has raised with me only one issue since the legal representation scheme for the police royal commission was established; that is, the ability to top up beyond the $800 per day that was allowed. Mr M.J. Birney: That is exactly the same question. Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, it is a different question. The issue that was discussed with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation was that there would be no provision for top up. The reason for that is very simple: by having two clients - namely, the Police Union, which would top up the money, and the police officer - the lawyer who appeared for the police officer would not have a direct duty to only one client; that is, the police officer he represented. That is the reason we have said that the scheme will be there for those who wish to use it and that $800 per day will be paid to the lawyer of the police officer’s choice who was prepared to participate in the scheme. A wide array of criminal lawyers was prepared to participate in the scheme. Mr M.J. Birney: Will you allow an individual police officer to top up that $800 per day in order to afford a lawyer who might have represented him or her in the past? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am happy to look at that proposition if it comes from an individual. The proposition that has been raised with us so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up that amount. The Government said no to that because it dealt with that issue in discussions with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation. The conflict of interest that it gave rise to was such that we thought $800 with no top up was a reasonable proposition. Mr M.J. Birney: However, you will allow an individual police officer to top it up? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: No, it is a different question. The issue that was discussed with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation was that there would be no provision for top up. The reason for that is very simple: by having two clients - namely, the Police Union, which would top up the money, and the police officer - the lawyer who appeared for the police officer would not have a direct duty to only one client; that is, the police officer he represented. That is the reason we have said that the scheme will be there for those who wish to use it and that $800 per day will be paid to the lawyer of the police officer’s choice who was prepared to participate in the scheme. A wide array of criminal lawyers was prepared to participate in the scheme. Mr M.J. Birney: Will you allow an individual police officer to top up that $800 per day in order to afford a lawyer who might have represented him or her in the past? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am happy to look at that proposition if it comes from an individual. The proposition that has been raised with us so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up that amount. The Government said no to that because it dealt with that issue in discussions with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation. The conflict of interest that it gave rise to was such that we thought $800 with no top up was a reasonable proposition. Mr M.J. Birney: However, you will allow an individual police officer to top it up? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr M.J. Birney: Will you allow an individual police officer to top up that $800 per day in order to afford a lawyer who might have represented him or her in the past? Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am happy to look at that proposition if it comes from an individual. The proposition that has been raised with us so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up that amount. The Government said no to that because it dealt with that issue in discussions with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation. The conflict of interest that it gave rise to was such that we thought $800 with no top up was a reasonable proposition. Mr M.J. Birney: However, you will allow an individual police officer to top it up? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: I am happy to look at that proposition if it comes from an individual. The proposition that has been raised with us so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up that amount. The Government said no to that because it dealt with that issue in discussions with the Police Union prior to the scheme coming into operation. The conflict of interest that it gave rise to was such that we thought $800 with no top up was a reasonable proposition. Mr M.J. Birney: However, you will allow an individual police officer to top it up? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr M.J. Birney: However, you will allow an individual police officer to top it up? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. These are matters of detail that require consideration. If the Police Union or an individual police officer puts that proposition to us, I am happy to look at it. The only proposition we have dealt with so far is the ability of the Police Union to top up the amount. That gave rise to the conflict, which I am sure members agree is undesirable in a royal commission of this nature. Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr M.J. Birney: Would you not presume that the Police Union and the police officer in question would have similar goals? Why would there be a conflict? Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: No. I can see quite profound conflicts emerging between the interests of the Police Union and the interests of an individual officer. It would not be correct to presume that the role of the lawyer would be the same in representing the Police Union as it would in representing an individual police officer. I will give the member a simple example. Let us say that a police officer is corrupt. Is the interest of the Police Union to cover up for that police officer or to expose corruption? What role would the lawyer, who would then be beholden to both, take? Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr M.J. Birney: They are innocent until proved guilty of course. Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
Mr J.A. McGINTY: Of course. However, I raised that as a hypothetical case to illustrate the nature of the conflict that could arise.
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.