❓ Question regarding the Attorney General's apparent change of position on the Moira Rayner matter and referral to the DPP. The AG defends his initial statements, clarifying his understanding of the DPP's role and justifying seeking a second opinion.
AnsweredQoN 474Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer the Attorney General to his statements on the morning of Friday, 26 August, when he strongly rejected any suggestion that the Moira Rayner matter should be sent to the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions for further investigation and deliberation and said - Frankly, I will take Malcolm McCusker’s word on that ahead of anyone else in this State. He said also - The idea that it should be sent off somewhere else again, when we haven’t even seen the report yet is, frankly, just playing politics with a very sad situation, a situation that’s made me very angry. By 1.00 pm on that day, the radio news was reporting the Attorney General’s backflip; namely, that he would be seeking a second opinion from the Director of Public Prosecutions. As the inspector’s report had not been released by the time the Attorney General’s backflip was reported, what caused the Attorney General to change his very strong position in the space of several hours? Mr J.A. McGINTY
AnswerView source ↗
Parliament was made aware at 5.00 pm, or soon thereafter, on the Thursday of the circumstances involving Ms Moira Rayner, with the report from the parliamentary committee into this particular matter. The committee did not table on that occasion the full report; that was something that no-one other than the members of the committee had access to. When I was being interviewed on the Paul Murray program early on Friday morning, the situation was that the report had not been made public. We were aware that Mr McCusker had made a finding that the behaviour of Ms Moira Rayner did not constitute criminal behaviour such as would sustain a charge, because that had been reported to the house. It was being put to me on that radio program, principally by the member for Nedlands, who is not in the chamber at the moment, that we should refer this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation. Everyone knows that the DPP does not investigate in the way that the police investigate. The police gather evidence and conduct an investigation in that way. It was being put to me that, somehow or other, we should empower the DPP to do something that the DPP does not do; that is, conduct an investigation. That was being put to me on that radio program, and that is what I said was nonsensical. I made the point - the member for Hillarys will be well aware of this - that the DPP prosecutes; he does not investigate. That was the reason I put that view forward. Having said that, I was more than happy to seek a second opinion from Robert Cock, QC, into whether criminal charges should be preferred. Mr M.J. Birney : What a load of rubbish! That is the most pathetic answer you have ever given! The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : I was more than happy to seek a second opinion to that of Mr Malcolm McCusker - the most eminent criminal lawyer in Western Australia, and the person who this Parliament has said should investigate the matter and determine whether charges should be laid. We accepted his view. Nonetheless, because there was massive public interest in this matter, I thought it was appropriate that we seek a second opinion from the state’s leading prosecutor, Robert Cock, QC. I do not want Mr Cock to conduct an investigation, because he is not resourced to do that, and he is not able to do that. However, he is a person to whom all of the investigatory materials can be provided to enable him to determine whether, in his opinion, a criminal charge could be laid.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: Parliament was made aware at 5.00 pm, or soon thereafter, on the Thursday of the circumstances involving Ms Moira Rayner, with the report from the parliamentary committee into this particular matter. The committee did not table on that occasion the full report; that was something that no-one other than the members of the committee had access to. When I was being interviewed on the Paul Murray program early on Friday morning, the situation was that the report had not been made public. We were aware that Mr McCusker had made a finding that the behaviour of Ms Moira Rayner did not constitute criminal behaviour such as would sustain a charge, because that had been reported to the house. It was being put to me on that radio program, principally by the member for Nedlands, who is not in the chamber at the moment, that we should refer this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation. Everyone knows that the DPP does not investigate in the way that the police investigate. The police gather evidence and conduct an investigation in that way. It was being put to me that, somehow or other, we should empower the DPP to do something that the DPP does not do; that is, conduct an investigation. That was being put to me on that radio program, and that is what I said was nonsensical. I made the point - the member for Hillarys will be well aware of this - that the DPP prosecutes; he does not investigate. That was the reason I put that view forward. Having said that, I was more than happy to seek a second opinion from Robert Cock, QC, into whether criminal charges should be preferred. Mr M.J. Birney : What a load of rubbish! That is the most pathetic answer you have ever given! The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : I was more than happy to seek a second opinion to that of Mr Malcolm McCusker - the most eminent criminal lawyer in Western Australia, and the person who this Parliament has said should investigate the matter and determine whether charges should be laid. We accepted his view. Nonetheless, because there was massive public interest in this matter, I thought it was appropriate that we seek a second opinion from the state’s leading prosecutor, Robert Cock, QC. I do not want Mr Cock to conduct an investigation, because he is not resourced to do that, and he is not able to do that. However, he is a person to whom all of the investigatory materials can be provided to enable him to determine whether, in his opinion, a criminal charge could be laid.
Parliament was made aware at 5.00 pm, or soon thereafter, on the Thursday of the circumstances involving Ms Moira Rayner, with the report from the parliamentary committee into this particular matter. The committee did not table on that occasion the full report; that was something that no-one other than the members of the committee had access to. When I was being interviewed on the Paul Murray program early on Friday morning, the situation was that the report had not been made public. We were aware that Mr McCusker had made a finding that the behaviour of Ms Moira Rayner did not constitute criminal behaviour such as would sustain a charge, because that had been reported to the house. It was being put to me on that radio program, principally by the member for Nedlands, who is not in the chamber at the moment, that we should refer this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation. Everyone knows that the DPP does not investigate in the way that the police investigate. The police gather evidence and conduct an investigation in that way. It was being put to me that, somehow or other, we should empower the DPP to do something that the DPP does not do; that is, conduct an investigation. That was being put to me on that radio program, and that is what I said was nonsensical. I made the point - the member for Hillarys will be well aware of this - that the DPP prosecutes; he does not investigate. That was the reason I put that view forward. Having said that, I was more than happy to seek a second opinion from Robert Cock, QC, into whether criminal charges should be preferred. Mr M.J. Birney : What a load of rubbish! That is the most pathetic answer you have ever given! The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : I was more than happy to seek a second opinion to that of Mr Malcolm McCusker - the most eminent criminal lawyer in Western Australia, and the person who this Parliament has said should investigate the matter and determine whether charges should be laid. We accepted his view. Nonetheless, because there was massive public interest in this matter, I thought it was appropriate that we seek a second opinion from the state’s leading prosecutor, Robert Cock, QC. I do not want Mr Cock to conduct an investigation, because he is not resourced to do that, and he is not able to do that. However, he is a person to whom all of the investigatory materials can be provided to enable him to determine whether, in his opinion, a criminal charge could be laid.
Mr M.J. Birney : What a load of rubbish! That is the most pathetic answer you have ever given! The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : I was more than happy to seek a second opinion to that of Mr Malcolm McCusker - the most eminent criminal lawyer in Western Australia, and the person who this Parliament has said should investigate the matter and determine whether charges should be laid. We accepted his view. Nonetheless, because there was massive public interest in this matter, I thought it was appropriate that we seek a second opinion from the state’s leading prosecutor, Robert Cock, QC. I do not want Mr Cock to conduct an investigation, because he is not resourced to do that, and he is not able to do that. However, he is a person to whom all of the investigatory materials can be provided to enable him to determine whether, in his opinion, a criminal charge could be laid.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : I was more than happy to seek a second opinion to that of Mr Malcolm McCusker - the most eminent criminal lawyer in Western Australia, and the person who this Parliament has said should investigate the matter and determine whether charges should be laid. We accepted his view. Nonetheless, because there was massive public interest in this matter, I thought it was appropriate that we seek a second opinion from the state’s leading prosecutor, Robert Cock, QC. I do not want Mr Cock to conduct an investigation, because he is not resourced to do that, and he is not able to do that. However, he is a person to whom all of the investigatory materials can be provided to enable him to determine whether, in his opinion, a criminal charge could be laid.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : I was more than happy to seek a second opinion to that of Mr Malcolm McCusker - the most eminent criminal lawyer in Western Australia, and the person who this Parliament has said should investigate the matter and determine whether charges should be laid. We accepted his view. Nonetheless, because there was massive public interest in this matter, I thought it was appropriate that we seek a second opinion from the state’s leading prosecutor, Robert Cock, QC. I do not want Mr Cock to conduct an investigation, because he is not resourced to do that, and he is not able to do that. However, he is a person to whom all of the investigatory materials can be provided to enable him to determine whether, in his opinion, a criminal charge could be laid.
Mr J.A. McGINTY replied: Parliament was made aware at 5.00 pm, or soon thereafter, on the Thursday of the circumstances involving Ms Moira Rayner, with the report from the parliamentary committee into this particular matter. The committee did not table on that occasion the full report; that was something that no-one other than the members of the committee had access to. When I was being interviewed on the Paul Murray program early on Friday morning, the situation was that the report had not been made public. We were aware that Mr McCusker had made a finding that the behaviour of Ms Moira Rayner did not constitute criminal behaviour such as would sustain a charge, because that had been reported to the house. It was being put to me on that radio program, principally by the member for Nedlands, who is not in the chamber at the moment, that we should refer this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation. Everyone knows that the DPP does not investigate in the way that the police investigate. The police gather evidence and conduct an investigation in that way. It was being put to me that, somehow or other, we should empower the DPP to do something that the DPP does not do; that is, conduct an investigation. That was being put to me on that radio program, and that is what I said was nonsensical. I made the point - the member for Hillarys will be well aware of this - that the DPP prosecutes; he does not investigate. That was the reason I put that view forward. Having said that, I was more than happy to seek a second opinion from Robert Cock, QC, into whether criminal charges should be preferred. Mr M.J. Birney : What a load of rubbish! That is the most pathetic answer you have ever given! The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : I was more than happy to seek a second opinion to that of Mr Malcolm McCusker - the most eminent criminal lawyer in Western Australia, and the person who this Parliament has said should investigate the matter and determine whether charges should be laid. We accepted his view. Nonetheless, because there was massive public interest in this matter, I thought it was appropriate that we seek a second opinion from the state’s leading prosecutor, Robert Cock, QC. I do not want Mr Cock to conduct an investigation, because he is not resourced to do that, and he is not able to do that. However, he is a person to whom all of the investigatory materials can be provided to enable him to determine whether, in his opinion, a criminal charge could be laid.
Parliament was made aware at 5.00 pm, or soon thereafter, on the Thursday of the circumstances involving Ms Moira Rayner, with the report from the parliamentary committee into this particular matter. The committee did not table on that occasion the full report; that was something that no-one other than the members of the committee had access to. When I was being interviewed on the Paul Murray program early on Friday morning, the situation was that the report had not been made public. We were aware that Mr McCusker had made a finding that the behaviour of Ms Moira Rayner did not constitute criminal behaviour such as would sustain a charge, because that had been reported to the house. It was being put to me on that radio program, principally by the member for Nedlands, who is not in the chamber at the moment, that we should refer this matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation. Everyone knows that the DPP does not investigate in the way that the police investigate. The police gather evidence and conduct an investigation in that way. It was being put to me that, somehow or other, we should empower the DPP to do something that the DPP does not do; that is, conduct an investigation. That was being put to me on that radio program, and that is what I said was nonsensical. I made the point - the member for Hillarys will be well aware of this - that the DPP prosecutes; he does not investigate. That was the reason I put that view forward. Having said that, I was more than happy to seek a second opinion from Robert Cock, QC, into whether criminal charges should be preferred. Mr M.J. Birney : What a load of rubbish! That is the most pathetic answer you have ever given! The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : I was more than happy to seek a second opinion to that of Mr Malcolm McCusker - the most eminent criminal lawyer in Western Australia, and the person who this Parliament has said should investigate the matter and determine whether charges should be laid. We accepted his view. Nonetheless, because there was massive public interest in this matter, I thought it was appropriate that we seek a second opinion from the state’s leading prosecutor, Robert Cock, QC. I do not want Mr Cock to conduct an investigation, because he is not resourced to do that, and he is not able to do that. However, he is a person to whom all of the investigatory materials can be provided to enable him to determine whether, in his opinion, a criminal charge could be laid.
Mr M.J. Birney : What a load of rubbish! That is the most pathetic answer you have ever given! The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : I was more than happy to seek a second opinion to that of Mr Malcolm McCusker - the most eminent criminal lawyer in Western Australia, and the person who this Parliament has said should investigate the matter and determine whether charges should be laid. We accepted his view. Nonetheless, because there was massive public interest in this matter, I thought it was appropriate that we seek a second opinion from the state’s leading prosecutor, Robert Cock, QC. I do not want Mr Cock to conduct an investigation, because he is not resourced to do that, and he is not able to do that. However, he is a person to whom all of the investigatory materials can be provided to enable him to determine whether, in his opinion, a criminal charge could be laid.
The SPEAKER : Order, members! Mr J.A. McGINTY : I was more than happy to seek a second opinion to that of Mr Malcolm McCusker - the most eminent criminal lawyer in Western Australia, and the person who this Parliament has said should investigate the matter and determine whether charges should be laid. We accepted his view. Nonetheless, because there was massive public interest in this matter, I thought it was appropriate that we seek a second opinion from the state’s leading prosecutor, Robert Cock, QC. I do not want Mr Cock to conduct an investigation, because he is not resourced to do that, and he is not able to do that. However, he is a person to whom all of the investigatory materials can be provided to enable him to determine whether, in his opinion, a criminal charge could be laid.
Mr J.A. McGINTY : I was more than happy to seek a second opinion to that of Mr Malcolm McCusker - the most eminent criminal lawyer in Western Australia, and the person who this Parliament has said should investigate the matter and determine whether charges should be laid. We accepted his view. Nonetheless, because there was massive public interest in this matter, I thought it was appropriate that we seek a second opinion from the state’s leading prosecutor, Robert Cock, QC. I do not want Mr Cock to conduct an investigation, because he is not resourced to do that, and he is not able to do that. However, he is a person to whom all of the investigatory materials can be provided to enable him to determine whether, in his opinion, a criminal charge could be laid.
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.