❓ Opposition asks about the Minister's knowledge of a police raid on a Department of Communities employee regarding leaked documents. The Minister confirms the referral to multiple agencies was made by the department, not the Minister, and criticizes the opposition's suggestion of ministerial interference in police operations.
AnsweredQoN 103Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
COMMUNITIES
— POLICE RAID
103. Ms L. METTAM to the Minister for Child Protection:
On behalf of the
opposition alliance, I would also like to acknowledge the sad passing of
cricket legend Rodney Marsh and extend our deepest condolences to his
family, friends and fans.
I refer to the recent police raid of the home of an employee
of the Department of Communities.
(1) On what
date did the Department of Communities alert the minister or her office about
allegations of official documents being leaked by an employee of her
department?
(2) Was the minister consulted on whether the
complaint should be referred to the Western Australia Police Force?
(3) On what
date did the minister become aware that police were to raid this employee's
home in search of evidence?
— POLICE RAID
103. Ms L. METTAM to the Minister for Child Protection:
On behalf of the
opposition alliance, I would also like to acknowledge the sad passing of
cricket legend Rodney Marsh and extend our deepest condolences to his
family, friends and fans.
I refer to the recent police raid of the home of an employee
of the Department of Communities.
(1) On what
date did the Department of Communities alert the minister or her office about
allegations of official documents being leaked by an employee of her
department?
(2) Was the minister consulted on whether the
complaint should be referred to the Western Australia Police Force?
(3) On what
date did the minister become aware that police were to raid this employee's
home in search of evidence?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(3) In regard to the questions being asked, it
is an interesting use of terminology with regard to the execution of warrants.
That was a police operational decision regarding the unauthorised removal of
quite a large number of documents from the Department of Communities. Not only
was there a large number of documents, but some of them contained very
sensitive information, including details of children in care. It was those two points
that led the Department of Communities to make a reference of this unauthorised
access or removal of those documents from the department. The department made a
referral to the Public Sector Commission, the Corruption and Crime Commission
and also the police. That was not a decision that I made.
In regard to what date I was
informed of that removal, I would need to check my records. I do not have that
date in front of me. I was informed that a large number of documents had been,
as I understand it, sent to an employee's personal email account and
perhaps had been forwarded from there.
I
was informed that the department was concerned about that and had made
referrals to the external agencies that I referred to—the Public
Sector Commission, the Corruption and Crime Commission and the police.
I do remember the execution of the
warrants and the date because there was a State Disaster Council meeting. The director general and I both attend the
State Disaster Council and it was the morning of 18 February. It was while sitting at that meeting, which I think started
at 8.30 or nine o'clock in the morning , that the director
general told me that the police had made a decision to issue or execute
warrants. I do not know whether I am using the correct police terminology, but
by that I understand they had a warrant to seize devices, perhaps a laptop or
phones—I am not sure—so that they could investigate those
concerns that the Department of Communities had raised with them. I understood
that a large number of documents had been removed or sent—by removed, I
mean sent to a person's personal email account and perhaps forwarded
from there. I was told that the Department of Communities had then referred
that to those agencies that I referred to. Then I understood that the police
had decided to act on that by issuing or executing warrants in their
investigation of those matters.
What is extraordinary to me is
that there has been a commentary by the opposition that ministers—either myself or the Minister for Police—should
have interfered in police operations and decided whether they should
investigate; and, if they did investigate, how they should investigate. That is
extraordinary. Hon Peter Collier, who is the opposition spokesperson as shadow
Minister for Police; Corrective Services, said in The West Australian of
25 February, and I quote —
Mr Collier described the raid as ''wrong
on so many levels,'' saying it was a waste of police resources and if
the Government was going to send police to investigate every leak they would
need to treble the size of the force.
I have got the greatest respect
for the police force, but this is a culture coming from the top down � from a Government
that is absolutely obsessed with secrecy, and absolutely petrified of the
truth,'' he said.
�
''Never
in a million years would I as a minister have endorsed the police going around
to someone's home � that's a sad reflection of the
Government, but at the same time that puts police in a very insidious position.''
Is the shadow Minister for Police
saying that ministers of the Crown should decide what criminal matters are
investigated and how they investigated? Is that what the shadow Minister for Police
is saying? He said also —
''Never in a million years
would I as a minister have endorsed the police going around to someone's
home �
I am not sure how he thinks the
police should do their work, but I would be interested to know how he thinks
they should carry out their operations and also what role ministers of the
Crown should have in police operations.
I reiterate that what was reported to
police, as was reported to the Public Sector Commission and the Corruption and
Crime Commission, was a large number of documents—over 2 500 documents.
Some of those documents contain spreadsheets with details of children in care.
That is very sensitive and specific information. It was the scale and nature of
that information that led the Department of Communities to make a report to
police. I for one make no apology about that.
is an interesting use of terminology with regard to the execution of warrants.
That was a police operational decision regarding the unauthorised removal of
quite a large number of documents from the Department of Communities. Not only
was there a large number of documents, but some of them contained very
sensitive information, including details of children in care. It was those two points
that led the Department of Communities to make a reference of this unauthorised
access or removal of those documents from the department. The department made a
referral to the Public Sector Commission, the Corruption and Crime Commission
and also the police. That was not a decision that I made.
In regard to what date I was
informed of that removal, I would need to check my records. I do not have that
date in front of me. I was informed that a large number of documents had been,
as I understand it, sent to an employee's personal email account and
perhaps had been forwarded from there.
I
was informed that the department was concerned about that and had made
referrals to the external agencies that I referred to—the Public
Sector Commission, the Corruption and Crime Commission and the police.
I do remember the execution of the
warrants and the date because there was a State Disaster Council meeting. The director general and I both attend the
State Disaster Council and it was the morning of 18 February. It was while sitting at that meeting, which I think started
at 8.30 or nine o'clock in the morning , that the director
general told me that the police had made a decision to issue or execute
warrants. I do not know whether I am using the correct police terminology, but
by that I understand they had a warrant to seize devices, perhaps a laptop or
phones—I am not sure—so that they could investigate those
concerns that the Department of Communities had raised with them. I understood
that a large number of documents had been removed or sent—by removed, I
mean sent to a person's personal email account and perhaps forwarded
from there. I was told that the Department of Communities had then referred
that to those agencies that I referred to. Then I understood that the police
had decided to act on that by issuing or executing warrants in their
investigation of those matters.
What is extraordinary to me is
that there has been a commentary by the opposition that ministers—either myself or the Minister for Police—should
have interfered in police operations and decided whether they should
investigate; and, if they did investigate, how they should investigate. That is
extraordinary. Hon Peter Collier, who is the opposition spokesperson as shadow
Minister for Police; Corrective Services, said in The West Australian of
25 February, and I quote —
Mr Collier described the raid as ''wrong
on so many levels,'' saying it was a waste of police resources and if
the Government was going to send police to investigate every leak they would
need to treble the size of the force.
I have got the greatest respect
for the police force, but this is a culture coming from the top down � from a Government
that is absolutely obsessed with secrecy, and absolutely petrified of the
truth,'' he said.
�
''Never
in a million years would I as a minister have endorsed the police going around
to someone's home � that's a sad reflection of the
Government, but at the same time that puts police in a very insidious position.''
Is the shadow Minister for Police
saying that ministers of the Crown should decide what criminal matters are
investigated and how they investigated? Is that what the shadow Minister for Police
is saying? He said also —
''Never in a million years
would I as a minister have endorsed the police going around to someone's
home �
I am not sure how he thinks the
police should do their work, but I would be interested to know how he thinks
they should carry out their operations and also what role ministers of the
Crown should have in police operations.
I reiterate that what was reported to
police, as was reported to the Public Sector Commission and the Corruption and
Crime Commission, was a large number of documents—over 2 500 documents.
Some of those documents contain spreadsheets with details of children in care.
That is very sensitive and specific information. It was the scale and nature of
that information that led the Department of Communities to make a report to
police. I for one make no apology about that.
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.