❓ Question on Notice regarding police interviews related to a forged resignation letter, focusing on the presence of a particular individual during the interviews and discrepancies in allowing support persons. The Minister's response defends the police's actions and accuses the questioner of personal attacks.
AnsweredQoN 163Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to police interviews of the member for Southern River and her electorate officer, and to the fact that both those interviews in relation to the forged resignation letter were compromised by the presence of the electorate officer of the Minister for Fair Trading. (1) Does the minister accept that it was highly irregular, as the Criminal Lawyers Association has claimed, for Enid Russell to be present during both interviews? (2) Why was Enid Russell allowed to take notes, and for what purpose did she do so? (3) Why was the innocent party in this scandal, Yvonne Poole, refused permission to have her husband present when she was interviewed by police? Mr PRINCE
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(2) If someone asks whether he or she can have someone present, and permission is given, that is fine. Who it happens to be has nothing to do with it. The member for Southern River and her electorate officer asked whether they could have someone they knew with them, and the answer was yes. There is nothing improper about that, or about taking notes. Indeed, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were called in such circumstances, I expect he would take notes as a contemporaneous record of what was said to jog his memory in case he was asked about it in the future. That is good practice I would have thought. Regarding whether Enid Russell compromised the process, she said nothing until she answered questions towards the end of the interview; I understand that she was able to answer a question when somebody else could not answer, and that was at the request of the interviewing officer. There is nothing wrong with the lady being there, or the request for her to be there. The member is on a fishing expedition again. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of what I said on Tuesday: If he pursues people personally like this, he will pay because the electorate does not like it. People have had enough of this sort of personal attack. Members opposite have no policy on law and order, police, education, health or anything else. They have only personal attacks inspired by a glittering indifference for the truth; that is all they are about. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should know better. He should not do it. (3) I have no idea, but I will inquire. That would be a call made by the police officers at the time of talking to the lady. I do not know why they did that.
(1) Does the minister accept that it was highly irregular, as the Criminal Lawyers Association has claimed, for Enid Russell to be present during both interviews? (2) Why was Enid Russell allowed to take notes, and for what purpose did she do so? (3) Why was the innocent party in this scandal, Yvonne Poole, refused permission to have her husband present when she was interviewed by police? Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(2) If someone asks whether he or she can have someone present, and permission is given, that is fine. Who it happens to be has nothing to do with it. The member for Southern River and her electorate officer asked whether they could have someone they knew with them, and the answer was yes. There is nothing improper about that, or about taking notes. Indeed, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were called in such circumstances, I expect he would take notes as a contemporaneous record of what was said to jog his memory in case he was asked about it in the future. That is good practice I would have thought. Regarding whether Enid Russell compromised the process, she said nothing until she answered questions towards the end of the interview; I understand that she was able to answer a question when somebody else could not answer, and that was at the request of the interviewing officer. There is nothing wrong with the lady being there, or the request for her to be there. The member is on a fishing expedition again. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of what I said on Tuesday: If he pursues people personally like this, he will pay because the electorate does not like it. People have had enough of this sort of personal attack. Members opposite have no policy on law and order, police, education, health or anything else. They have only personal attacks inspired by a glittering indifference for the truth; that is all they are about. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should know better. He should not do it. (3) I have no idea, but I will inquire. That would be a call made by the police officers at the time of talking to the lady. I do not know why they did that.
(2) Why was Enid Russell allowed to take notes, and for what purpose did she do so? (3) Why was the innocent party in this scandal, Yvonne Poole, refused permission to have her husband present when she was interviewed by police? Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(2) If someone asks whether he or she can have someone present, and permission is given, that is fine. Who it happens to be has nothing to do with it. The member for Southern River and her electorate officer asked whether they could have someone they knew with them, and the answer was yes. There is nothing improper about that, or about taking notes. Indeed, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were called in such circumstances, I expect he would take notes as a contemporaneous record of what was said to jog his memory in case he was asked about it in the future. That is good practice I would have thought. Regarding whether Enid Russell compromised the process, she said nothing until she answered questions towards the end of the interview; I understand that she was able to answer a question when somebody else could not answer, and that was at the request of the interviewing officer. There is nothing wrong with the lady being there, or the request for her to be there. The member is on a fishing expedition again. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of what I said on Tuesday: If he pursues people personally like this, he will pay because the electorate does not like it. People have had enough of this sort of personal attack. Members opposite have no policy on law and order, police, education, health or anything else. They have only personal attacks inspired by a glittering indifference for the truth; that is all they are about. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should know better. He should not do it. (3) I have no idea, but I will inquire. That would be a call made by the police officers at the time of talking to the lady. I do not know why they did that.
(3) Why was the innocent party in this scandal, Yvonne Poole, refused permission to have her husband present when she was interviewed by police? Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(2) If someone asks whether he or she can have someone present, and permission is given, that is fine. Who it happens to be has nothing to do with it. The member for Southern River and her electorate officer asked whether they could have someone they knew with them, and the answer was yes. There is nothing improper about that, or about taking notes. Indeed, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were called in such circumstances, I expect he would take notes as a contemporaneous record of what was said to jog his memory in case he was asked about it in the future. That is good practice I would have thought. Regarding whether Enid Russell compromised the process, she said nothing until she answered questions towards the end of the interview; I understand that she was able to answer a question when somebody else could not answer, and that was at the request of the interviewing officer. There is nothing wrong with the lady being there, or the request for her to be there. The member is on a fishing expedition again. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of what I said on Tuesday: If he pursues people personally like this, he will pay because the electorate does not like it. People have had enough of this sort of personal attack. Members opposite have no policy on law and order, police, education, health or anything else. They have only personal attacks inspired by a glittering indifference for the truth; that is all they are about. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should know better. He should not do it. (3) I have no idea, but I will inquire. That would be a call made by the police officers at the time of talking to the lady. I do not know why they did that.
Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(2) If someone asks whether he or she can have someone present, and permission is given, that is fine. Who it happens to be has nothing to do with it. The member for Southern River and her electorate officer asked whether they could have someone they knew with them, and the answer was yes. There is nothing improper about that, or about taking notes. Indeed, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were called in such circumstances, I expect he would take notes as a contemporaneous record of what was said to jog his memory in case he was asked about it in the future. That is good practice I would have thought. Regarding whether Enid Russell compromised the process, she said nothing until she answered questions towards the end of the interview; I understand that she was able to answer a question when somebody else could not answer, and that was at the request of the interviewing officer. There is nothing wrong with the lady being there, or the request for her to be there. The member is on a fishing expedition again. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of what I said on Tuesday: If he pursues people personally like this, he will pay because the electorate does not like it. People have had enough of this sort of personal attack. Members opposite have no policy on law and order, police, education, health or anything else. They have only personal attacks inspired by a glittering indifference for the truth; that is all they are about. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should know better. He should not do it. (3) I have no idea, but I will inquire. That would be a call made by the police officers at the time of talking to the lady. I do not know why they did that.
(1)-(2) If someone asks whether he or she can have someone present, and permission is given, that is fine. Who it happens to be has nothing to do with it. The member for Southern River and her electorate officer asked whether they could have someone they knew with them, and the answer was yes. There is nothing improper about that, or about taking notes. Indeed, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were called in such circumstances, I expect he would take notes as a contemporaneous record of what was said to jog his memory in case he was asked about it in the future. That is good practice I would have thought. Regarding whether Enid Russell compromised the process, she said nothing until she answered questions towards the end of the interview; I understand that she was able to answer a question when somebody else could not answer, and that was at the request of the interviewing officer. There is nothing wrong with the lady being there, or the request for her to be there. The member is on a fishing expedition again. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of what I said on Tuesday: If he pursues people personally like this, he will pay because the electorate does not like it. People have had enough of this sort of personal attack. Members opposite have no policy on law and order, police, education, health or anything else. They have only personal attacks inspired by a glittering indifference for the truth; that is all they are about. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should know better. He should not do it. (3) I have no idea, but I will inquire. That would be a call made by the police officers at the time of talking to the lady. I do not know why they did that.
Regarding whether Enid Russell compromised the process, she said nothing until she answered questions towards the end of the interview; I understand that she was able to answer a question when somebody else could not answer, and that was at the request of the interviewing officer. There is nothing wrong with the lady being there, or the request for her to be there. The member is on a fishing expedition again. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of what I said on Tuesday: If he pursues people personally like this, he will pay because the electorate does not like it. People have had enough of this sort of personal attack. Members opposite have no policy on law and order, police, education, health or anything else. They have only personal attacks inspired by a glittering indifference for the truth; that is all they are about. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should know better. He should not do it. (3) I have no idea, but I will inquire. That would be a call made by the police officers at the time of talking to the lady. I do not know why they did that.
(3) I have no idea, but I will inquire. That would be a call made by the police officers at the time of talking to the lady. I do not know why they did that.
(1) Does the minister accept that it was highly irregular, as the Criminal Lawyers Association has claimed, for Enid Russell to be present during both interviews? (2) Why was Enid Russell allowed to take notes, and for what purpose did she do so? (3) Why was the innocent party in this scandal, Yvonne Poole, refused permission to have her husband present when she was interviewed by police? Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(2) If someone asks whether he or she can have someone present, and permission is given, that is fine. Who it happens to be has nothing to do with it. The member for Southern River and her electorate officer asked whether they could have someone they knew with them, and the answer was yes. There is nothing improper about that, or about taking notes. Indeed, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were called in such circumstances, I expect he would take notes as a contemporaneous record of what was said to jog his memory in case he was asked about it in the future. That is good practice I would have thought. Regarding whether Enid Russell compromised the process, she said nothing until she answered questions towards the end of the interview; I understand that she was able to answer a question when somebody else could not answer, and that was at the request of the interviewing officer. There is nothing wrong with the lady being there, or the request for her to be there. The member is on a fishing expedition again. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of what I said on Tuesday: If he pursues people personally like this, he will pay because the electorate does not like it. People have had enough of this sort of personal attack. Members opposite have no policy on law and order, police, education, health or anything else. They have only personal attacks inspired by a glittering indifference for the truth; that is all they are about. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should know better. He should not do it. (3) I have no idea, but I will inquire. That would be a call made by the police officers at the time of talking to the lady. I do not know why they did that.
(2) Why was Enid Russell allowed to take notes, and for what purpose did she do so? (3) Why was the innocent party in this scandal, Yvonne Poole, refused permission to have her husband present when she was interviewed by police? Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(2) If someone asks whether he or she can have someone present, and permission is given, that is fine. Who it happens to be has nothing to do with it. The member for Southern River and her electorate officer asked whether they could have someone they knew with them, and the answer was yes. There is nothing improper about that, or about taking notes. Indeed, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were called in such circumstances, I expect he would take notes as a contemporaneous record of what was said to jog his memory in case he was asked about it in the future. That is good practice I would have thought. Regarding whether Enid Russell compromised the process, she said nothing until she answered questions towards the end of the interview; I understand that she was able to answer a question when somebody else could not answer, and that was at the request of the interviewing officer. There is nothing wrong with the lady being there, or the request for her to be there. The member is on a fishing expedition again. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of what I said on Tuesday: If he pursues people personally like this, he will pay because the electorate does not like it. People have had enough of this sort of personal attack. Members opposite have no policy on law and order, police, education, health or anything else. They have only personal attacks inspired by a glittering indifference for the truth; that is all they are about. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should know better. He should not do it. (3) I have no idea, but I will inquire. That would be a call made by the police officers at the time of talking to the lady. I do not know why they did that.
(3) Why was the innocent party in this scandal, Yvonne Poole, refused permission to have her husband present when she was interviewed by police? Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(2) If someone asks whether he or she can have someone present, and permission is given, that is fine. Who it happens to be has nothing to do with it. The member for Southern River and her electorate officer asked whether they could have someone they knew with them, and the answer was yes. There is nothing improper about that, or about taking notes. Indeed, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were called in such circumstances, I expect he would take notes as a contemporaneous record of what was said to jog his memory in case he was asked about it in the future. That is good practice I would have thought. Regarding whether Enid Russell compromised the process, she said nothing until she answered questions towards the end of the interview; I understand that she was able to answer a question when somebody else could not answer, and that was at the request of the interviewing officer. There is nothing wrong with the lady being there, or the request for her to be there. The member is on a fishing expedition again. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of what I said on Tuesday: If he pursues people personally like this, he will pay because the electorate does not like it. People have had enough of this sort of personal attack. Members opposite have no policy on law and order, police, education, health or anything else. They have only personal attacks inspired by a glittering indifference for the truth; that is all they are about. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should know better. He should not do it. (3) I have no idea, but I will inquire. That would be a call made by the police officers at the time of talking to the lady. I do not know why they did that.
Mr PRINCE replied: (1)-(2) If someone asks whether he or she can have someone present, and permission is given, that is fine. Who it happens to be has nothing to do with it. The member for Southern River and her electorate officer asked whether they could have someone they knew with them, and the answer was yes. There is nothing improper about that, or about taking notes. Indeed, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were called in such circumstances, I expect he would take notes as a contemporaneous record of what was said to jog his memory in case he was asked about it in the future. That is good practice I would have thought. Regarding whether Enid Russell compromised the process, she said nothing until she answered questions towards the end of the interview; I understand that she was able to answer a question when somebody else could not answer, and that was at the request of the interviewing officer. There is nothing wrong with the lady being there, or the request for her to be there. The member is on a fishing expedition again. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of what I said on Tuesday: If he pursues people personally like this, he will pay because the electorate does not like it. People have had enough of this sort of personal attack. Members opposite have no policy on law and order, police, education, health or anything else. They have only personal attacks inspired by a glittering indifference for the truth; that is all they are about. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should know better. He should not do it. (3) I have no idea, but I will inquire. That would be a call made by the police officers at the time of talking to the lady. I do not know why they did that.
(1)-(2) If someone asks whether he or she can have someone present, and permission is given, that is fine. Who it happens to be has nothing to do with it. The member for Southern River and her electorate officer asked whether they could have someone they knew with them, and the answer was yes. There is nothing improper about that, or about taking notes. Indeed, if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were called in such circumstances, I expect he would take notes as a contemporaneous record of what was said to jog his memory in case he was asked about it in the future. That is good practice I would have thought. Regarding whether Enid Russell compromised the process, she said nothing until she answered questions towards the end of the interview; I understand that she was able to answer a question when somebody else could not answer, and that was at the request of the interviewing officer. There is nothing wrong with the lady being there, or the request for her to be there. The member is on a fishing expedition again. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of what I said on Tuesday: If he pursues people personally like this, he will pay because the electorate does not like it. People have had enough of this sort of personal attack. Members opposite have no policy on law and order, police, education, health or anything else. They have only personal attacks inspired by a glittering indifference for the truth; that is all they are about. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should know better. He should not do it. (3) I have no idea, but I will inquire. That would be a call made by the police officers at the time of talking to the lady. I do not know why they did that.
Regarding whether Enid Russell compromised the process, she said nothing until she answered questions towards the end of the interview; I understand that she was able to answer a question when somebody else could not answer, and that was at the request of the interviewing officer. There is nothing wrong with the lady being there, or the request for her to be there. The member is on a fishing expedition again. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition of what I said on Tuesday: If he pursues people personally like this, he will pay because the electorate does not like it. People have had enough of this sort of personal attack. Members opposite have no policy on law and order, police, education, health or anything else. They have only personal attacks inspired by a glittering indifference for the truth; that is all they are about. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should know better. He should not do it. (3) I have no idea, but I will inquire. That would be a call made by the police officers at the time of talking to the lady. I do not know why they did that.
(3) I have no idea, but I will inquire. That would be a call made by the police officers at the time of talking to the lady. I do not know why they did 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.